Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Islwyn, in the room of the right hon. Neil Gordon Kinnock (Chiltern Hundreds).[Mr. Derek Foster.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Grammar Schools, Plymouth

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to close the remaining grammar schools in Plymouth.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): It is for local education authorities to bring forward proposals for changes in the pattern of organisation of schools in their area.

Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because Plymouth is about to become a unitary authority under Labour control, our three remaining grammar schools—all of them centres of excellence—feel very much under threat? Is it not a pity that, despite choosing the best schools for their own children, Opposition Members still seek to deny choice, diversity and excellence to everybody else?

Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear that the three grammar schools in Plymouth are popular and successful, and I hope very much that a change of local government organisation will not put those excellent and succesful schools under threat. The Labour party's stance on choice and selection is a great puzzle for those who follow these affairs. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) seem to support parental choice, at least for their own children. Perhaps it is a case of one rule for Opposition Front-Bench Members and another for the rest of the country.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Secretary of State aware that six grammar schools were closed in Plymouth in the 1980s, a time when there was a Tory Devon county council and a Tory Government and—I might say—a time when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) was a member of the Social Democratic party and advocating the closure of those schools? Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest threat to grammar, grant-maintained, primary and comprehensive schools in Plymouth is the severe cuts in their budgets which have been brought about by her Government?

Mrs. Shephard: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in the slightest. It is quite clear that the

greatest threat to excellence and high standards in our schools comes from the Labour party, which has devoted so much time during the past decade to opposing every possible measure which would improve standards in our schools.

Mr. Steen: Is the Secretary of State aware of the outrageous and disgraceful proposals by Devon county council to cut teaching staff in Plymouth grammar schools and others? They also intend to reduce the money which goes to those schools—rather than cut their own bureaucracy—to save some of the £650 million it costs to run Devon county council. Will she ring fence the education budget so that the council cannot do what it is threatening to do?

Mrs. Shephard: To ring-fence any portion of a county council budget is beyond my powers, but I hope that pressure from my hon. Friend and colleagues will prevent that kind of damaging cut in Devon schools.

Further Education Colleges

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the democratic accountability of colleges of further education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): None, though my right hon. Friend has occasionally received correspondence generally on the accountability of colleges of further education.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept that the removal of democratic control and accountability has made possible the abuse of public funds and the distortion of education priorities, as happened in Derby and Birmingham? If he accepts that, and the report on those two organisations, what actions will he take to rectify the situation?

Mr. Boswell: I do not accept that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and the independence that we have extended to colleges of further education, which they have warmly endorsed and from which they have benefited immensely, are contributing to their failure or lack of accountability, as precise rules—set out in their instruments of government, the 1992 Act and the financial agreements that they reach with the funding council—secure them.
There have been two cases of difficulty. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the reports on those two colleges, which have been prepared by independent persons at our request, it would he inappropriate for me to comment now. We are satisfied that the arrangements work well in general. The Opposition have not yet told the nation what they mean by bringing grant-maintained schools under a local democratic framework. That is a slogan, just as the hon. Gentleman's question was.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend realise that, by removing Weymouth college from the democratic control of Dorset county council, the college has been able to expand student numbers, its funding and its excellence, while all those schools that stayed within local education authority control last year received only


1 per cent. from the county council when the Government gave them a 4 per cent. increase in their revenue budgets?

Mr. Boswell: All that I can say is that I am not in the least surprised to hear that news from Weymouth because it is replicated throughout the country. This year, we are substantially increasing funding to colleges of further education and they are benefiting from our policies. That applies as much in Weymouth as in many other parts of the country—Leicester included.

Mr.Kilfoyle: Is not it a fact that colleges of further education have had their governing bodies stacked with like-minded people, often from outside the community that they serve? Have not those governors often put the salaries of a few people at the top of the pyramid ahead of the welfare of staff and students and have not the Government, by their actions, allowed many of those community colleges to be divorced from the very communities in which they have their roots? Is that not further evidence of the fragmentation of further and higher education while this Conservative Government have been in charge?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman must do a lot better than that to keep his present position. I am not sure how many colleges he has visited, but the plain fact is that every one that I have been to has been grateful for the freedom that we have extended to them. We have also extended the framework and transferability of democratic accountability. There is much more accountability now. The problems at the colleges that were referred to earlier had their origins in the past, long before the independence of colleges. The hon. Gentleman should look and learn a little more about the further education sector and stop knocking it so much.

Mr. Allason: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to South Devon college in my constituency, which recently won a charter award for excellence and is regarded as having far greater accountability to the local community than it achieved when it was in the hands of the county council?

Mr. Boswell: Indeed, my hon. Friend can rightly draw my attention to that college. I know of its achievements in obtaining a charter mark and being a winner in the further education charter competition. I meet Dr. Keen from time to time and have a great respect for what he has achieved. Surely the greatest tests of accountability are the readiness and willingness of students to select colleges and their obvious achievements when benefiting from their studies there.

Revenue Support Allocations

Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from schools concerned about teaching and staffing

redundancies in 1995–96 following consultations on the revenue support allocations for education in the next financial year.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My Department has received a number of representations about the local government finance settlement, as is customary at this time of the year.

Mr. Turner: I too have received many representations. Some of the letters that I have come from schools in Wolverhampton and they tell me of the impending crisis for their schools, and for schools throughout the country, unless the Secretary of State wins her battle with the Treasury to increase resources to schools during the next 12 months. In the midlands—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not want to hear the truth. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the midlands, a £70 million shortfall is predicted and more than 1,000 teaching jobs will be lost because of the attendant massive increase in class sizes? Will she call on the Prime Minister to intercede to offset that crisis?

Mrs. Shephard: This year's settlement amounts to £17 billion, which allows for an increase of more than 1 per cent. compared with last year. Under the provisional capping arrangement, local education authorities, including those in the west midlands, will be able to increase spending next year. At the moment, local education authorities are comparing the settlement with their budgets and spending plans. That is not to compare like with like.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Havering has received the worst education settlement in the country bar none, followed by south Tyneside, Northumberland, Gateshead, Stockport and St. Helen's, with which it seems to have nothing in common, whereas the four authorities that have done best are all inner London boroughs? Will she undertake to look into the reasons for that catastrophic quirk and do all she can to alleviate its worst effects on the education of children in our borough?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot generalise on the position within individual LEAs. I remind him that the Audit Commission, for example, has calculated that more than £0.5 billion is held in individual schools' budgets and that LEAs have recourse to their own balances, capital receipts and transfers between budget heads. Of course, all the components of the budget are not yet known.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State stand by the prediction she made in a letter that she wrote to her right hon. Friends just before the Budget? Given that LEAs are expected to reduce expenditure on primary schools by £50 per pupil and on secondary schools by nearly £200 per pupil, does she accept that that will lead to significant cuts in the number of staff and rising class sizes, and that the quality of education will suffer as a result?

Mrs. Shephard: I am not prepared to comment on a leaked letter. As I said, part of the component of budgets will be the recommendations of the School


Teachers Review Body. It has not yet submitted its report. When it does, we shall consider its recommendations, consult and announce our proposals.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of an organised campaign by local education authorities that is designed to draw attention to inequalities in standard spending assessments? Does she agree that the principal reason for such a campaign is to distract attention from the divisive and confused policies of the Labour and Liberal parties, especially as they relate to a graduate tax, the abolition of grant-maintained schools and the ending of charitable status for the independents?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. There are always gloomy predictions at this time of year and there is certainly evidence of a fairly vigorous campaign. In the slightly longer term, however, it will be unable to conceal the divisive and shambolic nature of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from Edington school in my constituency, a popular and successful local village school? Is she aware that, in an act of breathtaking hypocrisy last Friday, Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors on Wiltshire county council combined to vote through the closure of that successful and popular school? Is she willing to meet a small delegation of parents from the school who are now desperately worried about the future education of their children?

Mrs. Shephard: I am not yet aware of the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is always a great pity when a popular and successful school is threatened with closure. As part of the appeal against those proposals it will no doubt be possible to arrange for representations to be made to me or to ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Hardy: While it is obvious that the Government will look for someone else to blame, does the Secretary of State accept that she and her Department expect many redundancies, perhaps mass redundancies, to be announced at many of our schools? How does she expect to maintain success in education against that
background? Will she urgently look at the situation to avoid schools being placed in grave difficulties and to prevent standards and the maintenance of education being imperilled?

Mrs. Shephard: The STRB has not yet submitted its report, it is impossible to make the predictions that are being made so widely around the country. Whether or not class sizes will have to rise depends on local circumstances. I remind the hon. Gentleman that studies have never shown conclusive evidence of a link between class size and pupil performance. There is no reason to see marginal increases in class sizes as a threat to standards.

Mr. Blunkett: Tell that to the public schools and those who buy private education—[Interruption.]—and they will laugh in the the Secretary of State's face.
Given the right hon. Lady's prediction that the teachers' review body would award a pay increase for the coming year that will so exceed the amount that the Government have allocated for education that there will be mass redundancies and increased class sizes,

does she agree with her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who this morning recommended that, in order to avoid those redundancies, local authorities should emulate the Government, who are to sell off the Treasury building and then lease it back? He suggested that authorities should sell off local town halls and other buildings and use the capital receipts for revenue purposes to pay teachers' salaries. Alternatively, perhaps she will send him back to university to learn the difference between capital and revenue spending.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is more than usually imaginative, although the interesting display of his continuing prejudice against the private and the independent sector in education is not equally imaginative—a prejudice not shared, of course, by many of his hon. Friends. The STRB is free to recommend such increases as it sees fit, but I have asked it to take into account affordability. Pay levels should be no more than is necessary to retrain, recruit and motivate staff. The STRB will need to judge the extent to which schools will be able to fund pay increases when it makes its recommendations, without the florid solutions suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about reports circulating the west country this week that at a time when the Liberal-controlled LEA has threatened to cause massive redundancies in our schools, it has created a £17 million reserve for non-statutory administrative functions? Will my right hon. Friend carry out an investigation to see whether that is true, because we cannot possibly rely on the LEA in question to carry out an investigation into itself?

Mrs. Shephard: What my hon. Friend reveals is interesting and one wonders how much of that kind of practice is going on in the rest of the country, particularly in those areas from which the most noise is coming. I shall be happy to look at the details of that case, although I am quite certain that my hon. Friend will not let it rest, either.

Maintained Schools, Bradford

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the main criteria she observed in setting the latest capital allocation for Bradford's maintained schools.

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues about the capital programme shortfall facing Bradford metropolitan council in relation to education expenditure.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): In December, my right hon. Friend and other ministerial colleagues and I considered the allocation of annual capital guidelines, ACGs, to all local education authorities with great care in relation to the Government's published priorities, which are as follows: commitments arising from previous ACGs or supplementary credit approvals; identified need for new school places and cost-effective projects to remove surplus places.
Full details are given in the Department's letter of 4 July 1994 sent to all authorities, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister ensure that, when the Secretary of State comes to Bradford on 1 March, she finds time to visit local authority schools and to discuss with parents, teachers and governors their anger at the way in which, in the past 16 years, the Government have consistently neglected the need for repairs, renovation and replacement of crumbling schools in that city? This year, we have received £5 million, when our real needs are estimated at £40 million plus. The last straw came when, some time ago, the Department allocated a large amount of taxpayers' money to provide a covered-in playground for Bradford city technology college.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman appears to be slightly confused. First, as he knows, my right hon. Friend is looking forward to visiting Bradford, and during that visit she expects to be able to visit one or more LEA school. Secondly, I am sure that the House would welcome some recognition from him of the substantial success of Bradford CTC instead of the constant carping that we hear. Thirdly, if he was not already aware, he will now be aware that all ACGs, as I mentioned, are allocated by formula and, to the extent that Bradford LEA's bid matches that nationally agreed formula, so proportionately it will receive more money.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to what he alleged to be a poor rate of building money provided by Government in recent years. He should he aware that support for schools' capital increased by 57 per cent. in real terms between 1986–87 and 1993–94. That is a good record, by any standards.

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Minister will be aware, though, that the Secretary of State's visit to Bradford on 1 March will not be the first visit by a Secretary of State. During every previous visit, Secretaries of State promised extra help and support for Bradford when they heard the undeniable case made by Bradford people. I hope that, when the Secretary of State visits this time, she will take away the opinion of the all-party committee on education in Bradford, which says that the need in Bradford amounts to between £70 million and £100 million. I hope that we receive, not simply tea and sympathy, but some of the money that we need.

Mr. Squire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is delighted to hear of the warm reception that she will receive in Bradford—a warm reception that she receives in all parts of the country when she visits them.
I know that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to arguments made to her, but the hon. Gentleman must understand and accept ultimately that, if we were to distribute the money under anything other than an agreed formula, he would be one of the first to say that something was wrong, and he would smell some sort of rat. We have to distribute in accordance with a formula. Provided that the arguments that he and his friends in Bradford make are in line with that formula, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my hon. Friend compare the position of schools in Bradford with that of those in Lancashire? Is he aware that Lancashire

county council receives a substantial increase in funding, but, far from handing that over, it has threatened a cut of between 6 and 8 per cent.? Not only that, but—[Interruption.]—it has reduced the proportion handed down under local management of schools from 87 per cent. to 85 per cent.

Madam Speaker: Order. It is a good try by the hon. Lady, who mentioned Bradford only once and now is concerning herself, quite understandably, with Lancashire, but I am afraid that she must wait for a question on Lancashire. This is the other side of the Pennines, and both she and I know the difference.

Higher Education Students

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the planned total number of students in higher education in 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what were the figures underlying the 1993 Budget statement.

Mr. Boswell: The planned total number of students in higher education in England is 961,000 for both 1995–96 and 1996–97. The figures underlying the November 1993 budget were 941,000 for 1994–95, 963,000 for 1995–96 and 968,000 for 1996–97.

Mr. Purchase: The Minister must know that demand for places is increasing far more rapidly and, that by the policies he adopts, he is denying the opportunity for many putative students to study at university. Does he accept the opinion of the Confederation of British Industry and many others that it is vital that a bigger and bigger percentage of our young people attends university to bring us up to date with the skills that we need for the 21st century?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is stronger on assertion than on history. Student numbers have risen by 50 per cent. in the past five years. We are reviewing higher education and taking advice on the future size and shape of HE from interested parties and others who wish to contribute to the debate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listen to their suggestions before jumping to conclusions.

Mr. Rowe: About a year ago, my hon. Friend's predecessor told me that the Department was looking at the length of some degree courses. Does my hon. Friend agree that some students attending courses could complete their studies in a much shorter time than that laid down by the higher education institutions that they attend? Will he look again at the possibility of giving those students the opportunity to complete their studies more quickly?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. It is very much a matter for institutions and their students to consider, as they are responsible for academic courses and academic standards. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a plain mathematical fact that, the longer the length of a course for an individual, the lower the proportion of students who can be financed with the same given amount of money.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the lack of a relationship between the number of students and the consequent changes in funding has meant that many


students today suffer severe student poverty? Will the Minister undertake a study of the relationship between student poverty and academic success?

Mr. Boswell: It is an interesting fact that every three years there is a student income and expenditure survey. The survey published last year revealed no evidence of widespread poverty. It also found that if students avail themselves of the grant and loan to which they are entitled, they receive as much money to maintain their studies as they did previously. We protect the real-terms value of the total students' support package. While there may be specific cases, it is appropriate to refer them to the access funds. The overall participation of students and the expansion in their numbers suggest that poverty is not a widespread or significant problem.

Truancy Rates

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information the Government's performance tables provide about truancy rates.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The tables published in November 1994 found that significant amounts of valuable learning time are being lost due to unauthorised absence. In the maintained sector, an average of 11 half-days were lost by every absent primary school pupil and 22 half-days were lost by every absent secondary pupil. Rates of unauthorised absence varied widely between individual local education authorities and schools, as did rates of authorised absence. The latter were published for the first time in 1994.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In the light of what he has just said, what practical help can he give to head teachers who are experiencing difficulties with truants? Is he aware of a head teacher in my constituency who is trying to deal with a persistent truant who is only nine years old and who could one day become a criminal statistic unless something is done?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important point that greatly concerns both me and the Department. I am sure that she will be aware that, last year, we supported 80 local education authorities with projects worth £14 million—this year, we supported 90 local education authorities with £15.5 million. We helped them to run imaginative schemes to identify and tackle truancy, and to find how best to deal with it. We will review the projects and disseminate the best of them to all schools. It is vital that all pupils are in school and learning; if they are not, they not only lose out educationally but could develop criminal tendencies, or worse. That is why we lay great emphasis on the fact that all pupils should be in school all the time.

Inner-city Schools

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of Stare for Education what new grants for education support and training money has been made available to improve standards in inner-city schools.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The GEST programme for 1995–96 will benefit schools in all areas, directly or

indirectly. In addition, initiatives to raise standards in schools are eligible for funding from the single regeneration budget.

Mr. Enright: Does not a real cut of £20 million here on top of a cut of £13 million in inspection funds mean that the Government are mouthing things about quality, but will not put their hand where their mouth is?

Mrs. Shephard: No. [Interruption.] I think that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and his rather extraordinary image; I certainly disagree with the sentiment that he has tried to express. The GEST programme for the next financial year provides £250 million for local education authorities and schools to spend on 20 priority areas, including school effectiveness, and on a number of in-service training areas, particularly for primary teachers, concentrating on a grasp of the basics. All those areas will contribute directly to raising education standards.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that adequate funding is available under the GEST programme and other programmes for the 100 or so state schools which are located on the route between Islington and the London school at Brompton Oratory?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that I can confirm that to my hon. Friend's satisfaction.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that considerably fewer funds are available under the GEST programme now than five years ago, yet the changes in the national curriculum orders mean that schools must perform many more tasks? Will the Secretary of State consider allocating more funds to the GEST programme? Otherwise, it will be a huge failure and teachers will be very disappointed indeed.

Mrs. Shephard: As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), a great deal of money—nearly £250 million— is devoted to the GEST programme. I also made it clear that components of the GEST programme are designed specifically to maintain high standards and to provide training for teachers. The hon. Gentleman should look also at the resources that are now devoted to inspection and testing, all of which are designed to increase and improve education standards.

Grant-maintained Schools, Essex

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools in Essex are .grant-maintained.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There are 69 grant-maintained secondary schools in Essex, more than in any other local education authority area. Two thirds of the maintained secondary schools in the county are self-governing.

Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grant-maintained secondary schools in Essex are highly regarded by governors, staff, parents and pupils, which contrasts with the county council-run sixth form college in my area where examination results are very poor? Therefore, does she understand that grant-maintained secondary schools in my constituency need to establish their own sixth forms? When will she respond to the applications by King Edmund school, Rochford, and


Greensward school, Hockley, and will that response come in time to put in place the September arrangements for pupils?

Mrs. Shephard: I am aware that grant-maintained schools in Essex are very popular and successful, and I am also aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the proposals for those two schools. I undertake to give him a decision, in all possible haste, about the future of those sixth forms.

Schools Report

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the schools in "15,000 Hours".

Mr. Forth: No. It was agreed between all parties before the research began in the early 1970s that the schools would never be identified.

Mr. Bottomley: May I put it to my hon. Friend that, as the agreement was made in 1970–25 years ago—we can expect the names of the schools to come out in five years' time under the 30-year rule, or will the schools' names be kept more secret than Cabinet secrets? While we are awaiting those names, is it not about time that more attention was drawn to the results of the research by Professor Michael Rutter and others, showing that the features of a school—ethos and structure—make a difference, and it does matter to which schools parents send their children? Is it not important that all education authorities re-read that important book?

Mr. Forth: The undertaking of confidentiality was given by the researchers before the schools and teachers agreed to take part in the project. It was not necessary for the Department to know the identity of the schools and the researchers did not provide that information to the Department. Therefore, the Department has kept no official record of the schools that participated and, regrettably, my hon. Friend's ingenious and impassioned suggestion cannot be followed up.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, of course a great deal of valuable research has been done, within the Department and outside, on school effectiveness in the broadest sense. We want to know more about what makes a good school: the contribution by the head teacher in particular, the governors, the staff and the parents. We are working hard increasingly to identify what elements make a good school so that we can disseminate that to the other schools and give them the opportunity to improve.

Further Education

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she proposes to take to prevent the misuse of public funds in the further education sector.

Mr. Boswell: The chief executive of the Further Education Funding Council for England is responsible for ensuring that public funds are used for the purposes for which they were given. He has a duty to ensure that institutions have proper arrangements for financial

management and accounting. The council has also implemented a range of measures to prevent the misuse of public funds.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that there is substantial evidence of abuse by further education colleges, primarily because the regulations governing those colleges are extremely weak? Will the Secretary of State undertake to review those procedures?

Mr. Boswell: I am surprised at that because the Further Education Funding Council has introduced a range of measures. These are enshrined in the initial Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the instruments of governance of the colleges, the financial memoranda between the various colleges and the council and other audit controls which are imposed, and strengthened by the fact that the principal of the college is himself or herself the accounting officer for the purpose and has an important statutory role. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific evidence of malpractice or financial irregularity, I hope that he will draw it to the attention of the funding council. I have none.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend also examine the good use of funds in the further education sector, in particular the brand new facilities at North West Kent college, which were inaugurated by the Duke of Kent in Gravesend this morning?

Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend on that further advance in the further education sector. We are providing an additional 4 per cent. of funding for that sector in the coming year. We are making big demands on it and it is rising to the occasion.

Mr. Beggs: What advice is given to further and higher education authorities to prevent fraud gangs from masquerading as students and getting away with millions by faking student identities to obtain grants?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, although it is more germane to higher education. We and the higher education institutions and local education authorities have been concerned for some time about organised student frauds. The hon. Gentleman may have seen press reports on that matter only this morning and I hope he will have noticed that we have made available from Department for Education funds the sum of £120,000 for better computerised matching of similar, apparently similar or fraudulent entries in our determination to stamp out the problem.

Mr. Bryan Davies: In place of all this ministerial complacency, is it not time that Ministers addressed themselves to the declining morale of the further education sector? Have not Government centralising policies, such as using crude holdback to dictate the outcome of local disputes, reducing local accountability and marginalising the role of staff and students on governing bodies, given rise to the widespread anxiety that further education could join the slippery slope of other public institutions into the quango state?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman's technique on these occasions is, "If in doubt, say that there is something wrong with morale." I do not know how many further education colleges he has visited recently. I have had exhaustive discussions with many people and staff, as well as at principal level. I find morale generally to be


high and the readiness of governing bodies to involve their academic and profession staff on a professional basis in the activities of college is to be welcomed. I do not accept the picture he has painted, nor do the students whose numbers are increasing in accordance with the target of a 25 per cent. expansion in that sector over the next three years.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief use of funds in further education is to provide more places? Does he agree that the increased number of places under this Government should be a source of congratulation rather than subject to niggling criticism of the kind that we have heard all afternoon?

Mr. Boswell: We are not complacent about the record. The safeguards for accountability are in place, and we are determined that the nation should make the best possible investment from the additional funds that we are making available to further education.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has for securing an end to the dispute in the further education colleges sector.

Mr. Boswell: The dispute about further education lecturers' contracts is for the employers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to resolve. The Government have no plans to intervene.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware of the immense damage being done throughout the country by the failure of college management to negotiate on the future of further education? Will he join me in appealing to the governing body of West Cumbria college in Workington to meet all the staff in an open forum, to seek a resolution to the difficulties?

Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to comment on an individual case, unless he thinks that it would be better if Ministers were to run college industrial relations policies. I naturally hope that discussions between staff and governors will always take place, locally and nationally. Although we have no plans to intervene in this case, I understand that the national negotiating bodies are again considering their position. We would like those matters to be resolved, but the basis of progress must be professionalism and efficiency in the delivery of further education.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Flynn: Was not top Tory John Maples right when he said that Tory Britain means the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that the orgy of unashamed greed of top salaries is justified? How does the Prime Minister

explain that the wage of one boss of a privatised industry is worth the same amount of money as that received by 20 doctors or 100 nurses?

The Prime Minister: I have set out my views on board pay before and have made it clear that I do not agree with excessive and unjustified increases. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree. If he feels that the matter has been badly handled, he might discuss it with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who declares an interest in a company that advises British Gas and North West Water.

Mr. Rathbone: When my right hon. Friend is making plans for the Tory manifesto for a Conservative victory at the next general election, will he pay particular attention to policies that touch on and support the encouragement of the family?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are embarking on perhaps the widest examination of the policies that will be right, up to the next century and beyond it, that any party has undertaken for many years. I look forward to contributions from my hon. Friend and many others.

Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that excessive pay awards are a matter for shareholders, and as the Government are the 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen, why will he not intervene?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that, having put the company in private hands, we are riot going to retain control over detailed decisions within the company. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been speaking about something that sounds much like the beginning of a pay policy.

Ms Church: Yes.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says yes. I am pleased to hear that she says yes. The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether the new Labour believes in the free market or in controls and the politics of envy. The truth is that the language is new, but the prejudices are familiar.

Mr. Blair: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what we believe in: public services run for the public and in the public interest. We can see whom the Tories represent. While they represent these excesses, the Labour party will speak up for the vast majority of ordinary people. People struggling to pay their bills and worried about their living standards are fed up with the same small group of people playing the boardroom equivalent of the national lottery and awarding themselves huge pay increases, hitting the jackpot week after week at the expense of the public.

The Prime Minister: Well, now we see it: the right hon. Gentleman is becoming a slave to grievance politics. I shall tell him who is concerned about public services—the people who put the services that did not serve the public well in private hands. The result is that prices are falling, investment is rising and consumers are getting better service now, in the private sector, than before. The Labour party's campaign shows just how unreconstructed and envious the Opposition still are. The right hon.


Gentleman makes no reference to the improvements in services. All he is doing is milking prejudice and exposing the fact that the Labour party has not changed.

Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's most welcome reports confirming that the Samsung Heavy Industries Company from South Korea is to establish a manufacturing plant near Knaresborough in my constituency, ultimately providing up to 600 jobs? Does he agree that the United Kingdom beat off competition from eight European countries because our Government have managed the economy so well? We have an excellent infrastructure; more importantly, we have a brilliant work force in Yorkshire.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that Samsung has decided to invest in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am only sorry that we did not hear the same sort of support for inward investment when NEC went to Livingston and Black and Decker went to Sedgefield.
The fact is that more inward investment is coming to this country than to any other in Europe because of the policies that we have followed, and because we will not accept the social chapter. People can see that the economy of this country is doing better than any other major economy in Europe. That means jobs for people in this country—jobs that would be lost by the policies followed by the Labour party.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the life sentence handed out to Private Lee Clegg, although required by the law, is nevertheless shamefully inappropriate, and that this is the moment for him to be released under licence, and the law changed?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for Ministers to comment on the actions of the court.
There are two points that I can make to the right hon. Gentleman about Private Clegg. The first is that there have been suggestions in recent days of fresh evidence that might cast doubt on Private Clegg's conviction. If so, that evidence should be provided to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will then consider it and decide whether it is sufficient to refer to the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, after the recent decision, the question arises what should happen to Private Clegg now that his conviction has been upheld by the court. As the House will know, as for all life sentence prisoners there is a process to be gone through before a release date can be set. It will include consultations with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it will take into account the nature of the offence. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that process is undertaken both effectively and with due care.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the Government banned veal crates and introduced the strictest regulations governing the transport of animals, and when they recently introduced welfare regulations covering the rearing of pigs, they did so hoping that Europe would soon follow? Will he persist in that policy?

The Prime Minister: We certainly will persist in that policy. We need a European-wide level of legislation if

we are truly interested in animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pressed that issue in Brussels yesterday. He secured agreement yesterday to advance the review of European Union requirements, which was scheduled for 1997, and found that there was considerable sympathy for the aim of phasing out the veal crate. I believe that the writing is on the wall for that production system, and there is no one in Europe who can take more credit for that than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Battle: As the Prime Minister and his Government hold the golden shares in the privatised water companies, why is he allowing Yorkshire Water to force people to have compulsory, expensive water metering, so that families, pensioners and the disabled pay the highest price for their water while Sir Gordon Jones and his directors hoard thousands of shares to themselves and skim off some £829,000 in boardroom remuneration?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he would have known the answer about the golden share. What the hon. Gentleman illustrates, yet again, is that, whenever they can, the Opposition wish decisions to be taken by Labour Members of Parliament. They are in no sense interested in the private sector. They are not interested in putting decisions out to the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sleaze."] Whatever they may say, they want centralisation and nothing but. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sleaze."] Those Opposition Members who are chanting may well be directing their chants to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but they need not chant at me.

Prime Ministerial Visits

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood Parliamentary constituency.

The Prime Minister: I have not had the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Wilkinson: Had my right hon. Friend been able to visit the Ruislip-Northwood constituency since 28 November 1994, he would have found strong support from local people, backed by their local Member of Parliament, for the view that RAF Northolt, which is frequently used by Her Majesty's Ministers, should develop its services to the armed forces to the full. It welcomes the forthcoming arrival of the Queen's flight, but local residents would not approve of any extension of civil movements to RAF Northolt beyond those already permitted.

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on one of the most effective pieces of coat-trailing that we have heard in the House for some time. I understand the points that he made and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Taxation

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what was the tax burden on an average income family in 1991; and what is the estimated burden on a similar family in 1995.

The Prime Minister: The answer would depend on a number of factors, such as family size and expenditure pattern, which the hon. Gentleman does not specify, but I can tell him that real take-home pay after tax and inflation has risen by 4 per cent.—about £11 a week in today's prices—since 1991 for a one-earner family on average earnings and is expected to rise further next year.

Mr. Cohen: Despite the Prime Minister's manifesto assertion, "I believe in low taxes," since the previous general election an average family must pay an extra £15.50 a week in tax. Will he give the reason for that whacking increase, especially as public services have deteriorated or been privatised? Surely the Prime Minister should be referred to the Nolan committee for bringing manifesto commitments into disrepute.

The Prime Minister: Were that to be so, after that question the hon. Gentleman would have to join me, for he will know that the Labour party proposes to introduce—in addition to existing taxes—a windfall tax, a payroll tax, a health tax, an entertainment tax and a development tax. That is on top of the intricate piece of accountancy by the Liberal Democrats, on which I congratulate them, which suggests that Labour party plans would already add 5p to the standard rate of income tax. While we head for 20p, the Labour party heads for 30p.

Engagements

Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. Friend please assure those of my constituents whose children are at grammar and independent schools that he has no plans to abolish

the assisted places scheme or charitable status, or to stop selection? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Opposition wish to abolish such schools, many of their spokesmen have benefited from them?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. A large number of what I believe are called, in current Labour terminology, "sensible" parents have evacuated their children from Labour-controlled education authorities and sent them elsewhere, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge).

Mr. MacShane: Cheap.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is cheap, but that is what they have done.

Indonesia

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Indonesia.

The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.

Mr. Corbyn: As the Prime Minister has no plans to do visit Indonesia, will he convey to the Indonesian Government the British people's abhorrence of the illegal occupation of East Timor and the death of 200,000 East Timorese people at the hands of the Indonesian army? Will the right hon. Gentleman halt all British arms sales to Indonesia, which have been used to suppress and oppress the people there, and specifically ban the export of the Scorpion personnel carrier which can be used to kill and injure people in East Timor in order to maintain that illegal occupation?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not recognised the Indonesian annexation of East Timor. That has been our position for a long time and we continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a lasting solution to the problem. However, there is neither a European Union nor a United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia; nor do I believe that one would be justified.

Points of Order

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point or order, Madam Speaker. Tomorrow, Scottish Members table Scottish Questions under the new procedure, but even under that new procedure we still will not have the right directly to question all Scottish Office Ministers. That is extremely frustrating for Scottish Members. Could that be referred to the Procedure Committee for further consideration?
For example, I am sure that today many Scottish Members would have wished to question the Law Officers on whether they had available to them information from the American air force before they initiated proceedings against the current Lockerbie suspects. But even the basic democratic question of "What do you know and when did you know it?" is not available to Scottish Members. Does that not amount to an abuse of Scottish democracy?

Madam Speaker: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is referring to Standing Order No. 94B, which does not envisage Ministers who sit in the other place answering questions in the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he may wish to pursue the matter. The only way that the matter can be pursued is by putting it to the Procedure Committee and asking it to consider the matter.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Page 165 of "Erskine May" makes the point that control of the accommodation and services of the House
is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House.
I mention that because it may reassure us that we will not find, one of these days, that the building is being privatised like the Treasury building over the road. This is an apt opportunity to make it clear that the Palace of Westminster will not be turned into offices and a hotel by private speculators. Otherwise, the rumour may grow that, if it can be done over the road with the Treasury building, perhaps this building will be next.

Madam Speaker: From time to time, many of us complain about this building—that we do not have sufficient accommodation or that it is not as modern as we would like. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] That may be so, but, I would defend this building until my last breath. I shall be the first to the barricades to safeguard it as it stands.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister perhaps inadvertently to mislead the House and to suggest that I have evacuated my children at any stage

to schools outside the local authority, when all my five children have always attended local authority schools in the district in which they reside?

Madam Speaker: I missed the point, if that was the point, that the Prime Minister made, but the hon. Gentleman has put the record straight for himself.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press you on this matter, but you will remember that three months ago I intervened and asked whether you would rule on occasions when Ministers exploited the children of hon. Members by raising these issues in the House. You ruled that you believed that it was wrong. Today, the Prime Minister has done it in relation to five hon. Members. Would you assert those rulings whereby hon. Members are advised that they should not make such statements?

Madam Speaker: I did not think today that the Prime Minister was exploiting the children of hon. Members. I thought that he was exploiting the hon. Members themselves and the attitudes that they took. I am careful in listening to the exchanges across the House on these matters. I am sure that the House knows that I deprecate the use of families like footballs across the Floor of the House. We have to be careful. It is reasonable, however, for hon. Members on both sides of the House to be attacked politically because we have a platform on which we can reply. That is the way in which it should be done.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it another point of order on this matter?

Mr. Bruce: rose—

Madam Speaker: I have made my ruling. I will hear no more points of order on the matter. The House knows clearly where I stand. The hon. Member said that it was a point of order on this matter. Has he changed his mind? He has thought of another one.

Mr. Bruce: I rose on a point of order in relation to a completely different matter, Madam Speaker. I thought that you had finished and I apologise for interrupting your flow. My point of order deals with access to the House. On Sunday, you may have seen on the BBC "On The Record" programme a picture of people queuing to get into the Gallery of the House. The person introducing the subject said that people had to get in a queue to lobby their Member of Parliament, which is incorrect. I wonder whether you have any powers to keep the fourth estate in line on this matter. Perhaps we should take their passes away for a week or so, so that they would more accurately reflect how people can lobby their Member of Parliament.

Madam Speaker: I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Broadcasting could consider the matter. I have not seen the programme. I have quite a lot of other interesting things to do on a Sunday evening.

Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services)

Ms Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for comprehensive services for persons referred to specialist psychiatric services or discharged from hospital following treatment for mental disorder and for connected purposes.
The Bill would give enforceable rights to care and support to mentally ill people in the community. It would also establish national standards for the provision of services and care. Mentally ill people still live at the margins of our society. For too long, our concern and the public resources it represents have been as marginal. We have all had our reasons for that failure.
Professor Kathleen Jones put it well when she said:
to the politician community care is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the Civil Servant it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can pass to the local authority for action or inaction. To the visionary it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care. To the Social Services Department it is a nightmare of heightened public expectation and inadequate resources to meet them.
Those words are as relevant today as when they were first written 20 years ago, and that is the problem.
There is now unquestioned and universal agreement about what makes care in the community work—agreement that was validated by research in the mid-1960s, and confirmed by numerous studies since then and by the experience of mentally ill people themselves during the past 30 years. The essential elements of community care are stable accommodation, the support of a named key worker, day care and access to crisis services that are available 24 hours a day and not—as, unfortunately, is still too often the case—only from 9 to 5.
Shamefully, whether a person secures the services that he needs, when he needs them and for as long as he needs them, still depends on a geographical lottery. The level, range and quality of provision varies enormously from one district to another. Eligibility varies. Is it any wonder that mentally ill people desperate for help just get lost, sometimes with tragic consequences?
When treatment was provided in large, distant hospitals, society could and did ignore the injustices and, sometimes, even the brutality that that caused. Patients were denied privacy and their own clothing; even false teeth were handed out before meals by charge nurses. But that time has long since passed, and no one seriously proposes a return to policies abandoned by public and professional consent a generation ago.
Today's challenge, which cannot be bucked, is to bring the essential elements of care once found in mental hospitals to every person who stands in need of them. The risk posed by recent tragedies is that public confidence will falter just when the Government and Parliament must be made to face that challenge and deliver a policy that works for all. How can confidence be restored in a policy that depends on the one hand on public acceptance and support, and on the other on the actions and decisions of countless doctors, nurses, social workers and other professionals?
What is needed is a system for care and treatment that can meet the twin concerns of public safety and the need to ensure that individuals are given appropriate and reliable help while living their lives in the community

rather than in a hospital ward. Our present legal framework for mental health is out of date; the legislation is hospital-based, and fails to take account of the fact that 90 per cent. of care is now provided in the community. Indeed, our mental health laws work against the very aims of community care, becoming more and more discredited as tragic cases highlight their glaring limitations.
Parliament created that inadequate legal framework, and it is now Parliament's responsibility to change it. In the House, we can legislate for a system within which the various rights and duties combine to provide a safer and more effective service for the mentally ill person, his relatives and the public. We can render more accountable those—from Ministers to individual practitioners—whom society has entrusted with the task of getting the policy to work.
What is needed to inspire both professional and public confidence is nothing less than root-and-branch reform—not tinkering with the details of the present law as the Government propose, or offering some paper-thin charter, which will be the next desperate idea. Numerous inquiry reports have emphasised that people can simply be lost by the services that should be helping them. Only last week, one such report—produced by a committee headed by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper—termed the Mental Health Act 1983 obsolete. The Health Service Journal, adding its voice, said that the "outmoded" Mental Health Act is "inadequate" and needs replacing.
My Bill offers a new legal framework. It will impose clear duties on health authorities, national health service trusts and social services authorities to assess and keep under regular review the needs which a person might have for the full range of medical treatment, social care and practical assistance required for life in the community. It will require the Government to establish and enforce minimum standards of community care provision throughout the country, with corresponding responsibility to ensure that those having to meet those standards have the funds with which to do so.
The Bill will define new duties which make health and social work professionals, and the authorities which employ them, accountable to those patients with whom they work and to the public for the decisions which they make on their behalf. Above all, it will for the first time give those who must rely on our health and social care system clear rights to receive the services which they need to have a decent chance of something better than just surviving in the community.
My Bill has the support of every major organisation concerned with the care and support of mentally ill people. Its principles are supported by MIND, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Mental Health Foundation, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Survivors Speak Out, the patients' organisation, and Unison, the health service trade union.
The Bill also has extensive cross-party support within the House. I hope that it will be given an unopposed First reading by the House and that, in time, its much-needed proposals may find their place in legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Janet Anderson, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Ms Estelle Morris, and Mr. Roger Sims.

COMMUNITY CARE (RIGHTS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES)

Ms Tessa Jowell accordingly presented a Bill to provide for comprehensive services for persons referred to specialist psychiatric services or discharged from hospital following treatment for mental disorder and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday March 3, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

Madam Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: Before we embark on the Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill, the House may wish to know how I view the position of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill presented by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), which is due to receive its Second Reading on Friday 10 February.
Obviously the question arises as to whether the private Member's Bill can properly proceed once a decision has been reached on today's Bill. "Erskine May" states on pages 468 to 469:
There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the House has already been taken on one such Bill, for example, if the Bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions".
The Disability Discrimination Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill clearly overlap in many respects, but in many respects they are incompatible and they cannot be said to contain substantially the same provisions. To the extent that their provisions differ and are incompatible, the House may at some stage have a choice to make between them. I do not consider that it would be right for me as Speaker to prevent the House from proceeding with the Second Reading of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East if it wishes to do so, even if the Government's Bill has previously been given a Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — Disability Discrimination Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government give a high priority to helping disabled people to live with dignity and independence. During the past 15 years, much has been done to further that aim. The new access to work programme has enabled a wider range of disabled people to obtain and keep employment, by helping them to overcome barriers at work. The introduction of access requirements to the building regulations has had a substantial effect on social, recreational and employment possibilities for disabled people. The number of disabled children educated in mainstream schools has increased steadily, great progress has been made towards an accessible transport network, and spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has more than trebled in real terms.
Despite what has been achieved, the Government recognise that discrimination still occurs. Disabled people are still liable to be afforded less favourable treatment throughout a whole range of activities—whether when applying for a job, or trying to get a table in a restaurant. For example, a few years ago, Scope conducted an interesting experiment, in which job advertisements were responded to with two curriculum vitae, which were identical in every way, except that one revealed a disability. The study concluded that an able-bodied applicant was much more likely to receive a positive response to an application.
The Government have always made it clear that they are committed to ending the irrationality with which disabled people are all too often treated and regarded. It is utterly wrong that disabled people are restricted, or excluded from some aspects of life. We all must come to terms with including people with a disability in our work, travel, study and leisure—all the more so because our ageing population will bring with it an increasing number of people with some kind of disability.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister quoted the case of someone being discriminated against when applying for a job and thus clearly gave the House the impression that such discrimination was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, and he nods, why should the Bill make it acceptable for companies employing fewer than 20 people?

Mr. Hague: The provisions in the Bill will cover 83 per cent. of employees who work in firms employing 20 or more people. There are reasons why we want to exempt smaller firms from the employment requirements and I will come to those.
The Bill is the most tangible evidence yet of the Government's commitment to disabled people. It establishes Britain as leading the way in Europe. In time,

it will bring about the dramatic changes to which I shall refer. It will involve millions of people in taking positive action, its implications for what individuals and businesses must do are more far-reaching than existing sex and race legislation, and its effects will be felt across the board, in all aspects of life. It will give disabled people a right not to be discriminated against in employment, and a right of access to goods, facilities, financial services and the transport infrastructure.
As our White Paper made clear, however, our proposals go much wider than the areas in which legislation is necessary. The accompanying measures, on transport and education, and the consultation on domestic dwellings complete the most comprehensive package to deal with such matters proposed by any Government.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister mentioned accompanying measures to deal with education. In an answer to me last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Bill applied to education, yet one clause deliberately excludes 12 areas—mainly on the basis of the funding authority involved—so it is difficult to know which educational institutions will be covered by the provisions. Will the Minister confirm that those are not covered and clarify whether they will be covered by some other provision?

Mr. Hague: As the hon. Member knows from the White Paper and from my statement to the House on 24 November 1994, the Government are proposing a number of education measures that are separate from the scope of the Bill. As he should also know, its employment provisions will apply to educational institutions, so the Prime Minister was right to say that aspects of the Bill apply to education, just as he was right to say that aspects of it apply to transport.
Part I defines disability for the purpose of the new law. Opposition Members have implied in their reasoned amendment that we have defined the concept of disability too narrowly. But a wider definition that stretched the concept of disability too far would lack credibility and be open to abuse. Our definition is the right one, because employers and service providers will understand it, and it will therefore make the Act operable.
Part II concerns the employment right. The new employment right is broadly on the lines of present anti-discrimination provision for women and ethnic minorities, but with the additional requirement on employers to make reasonable adjustments to overcome any practical constraints imposed by a person's disability. The right covers all aspects of employment: when disabled people apply for work or take up employment and when people become disabled during their working lives. It will replace the outdated and unworkable quota scheme. Like that scheme, it will cover a broad range of physical and mental disabilities.
The Bill provides for codes of practice to be issued, which will help employers in deciding whether an adjustment is reasonable in a particular case. They will need to take account of the cost of the adjustment and its usefulness in overcoming the practical effect of the disability. Most disabled people who want to work need no or only very modest help.
The new right will apply to employers with 20 or more employees—a point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—and include 83 per cent. of all employees.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister said earlier that most disabled people who want to work need no or very little help. On what authority does he say that?

Mr. Hague: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be eager to agree with me. I say it on the basis of experience in the United States, where employers found that "reasonable accommodation", which is their equivalent of our term "reasonable adjustment", cost nothing in 43 per cent. of cases because it involved just moving the office furniture around or doing something sensible and practical like introducing different working hours. A large proportion of other adjustments cost very little. So I am entirely justified in saying that—

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Hague: I must get on with my speech, but if the hon. Gentleman needs further elaboration, let him ask.

Mr. Clarke: I promise the Minister that I shall be as generous and give way to him at least twice.
Given that the Minister has just said that those measures cost nothing, which was an important statement on behalf of the Government, why are the Government being so mean?

Mr. Hague: It is most comforting to know that the hon. Gentleman will give way to me twice, but it is not comforting to see that he cannot reconcile the various statements that I have made on this matter. It can be simultaneously true that, while many adjustments cost nothing, some cost something. Some employers will have to pay a bill to finance a reasonable adjustment, and I see no inconsistency between those positions.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I must now make a little progress, but I shall try to give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later if he wishes. Many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
The exemption for small firms reflects the Government's recognition that it may be more difficult and burdensome for smaller firms to get to grips with the new right. There will, however, be provision for the threshold of 20 employees to be changed by way of regulation and the Government will keep the level under review as experience is gained of the new right.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hague: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I shall then make a good deal of progress with my speech.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend spoke of the undesirability of imposing a burden on business. I do not want to be unreasonable, but should not we expect

business men to behave as decently as other people? Does my hon. Friend recall that Oliver Twist's first cry on being born in the workhouse advertised to the inmates "the fact of a new burden having been imposed on the parish"? Does my hon. Friend sometimes feel, as I do, that we need a new Dickens to describe the absurdities and horrors of our complacencies?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend describes the position in an interesting and literary way. We can think of those matters as burdens but also as opportunities for employers and service providers, many of whom will find that including disabled people brings benefits. We must recognise, however, that there will be a cost implication for many employers and a cost to goods and service providers—in their case we expect it to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. We cannot wish away the fact that the Bill's provisions will represent an additional cost for many people.

Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister expect that his hon. Friends will table amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to provide a 20-employees exemption? If he does not, why is he treating disabled people differently?

Mr. Hague: I cannot anticipate what amendments may be tabled to the Bill, let alone to previous Acts of Parliament. It is important to recognise that the Bill expects more cost and positive action on the part of employers than that expected of them to overcome other cases of discrimination. As I have already said, the Government have provided that the threshold of 20 employees may be changed through regulation. We shall keep the level of that restriction under review.
Part III contains the access provisions. Service providers will be required to change policies, practices and procedures that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of goods. They will also be required to provide auxiliary aids or services—such as induction loops—or remove physical barriers to help disabled people gain access to goods, facilities and services. Those requirements will lead to a huge leap forward in the accessibility of goods and services to disabled people. We have listened carefully to the representations made during our consultation exercise and we have responded.
We have consulted in particular on insurance. We have decided that a statutory provision needs to be made for the insurance industry. We are taking powers to prescribe that insurers may treat disabled people differently only where that is based on sound evidence. My officials, together with their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, are discussing with the Association of British Insurers and Lloyd's a statutory framework to end discrimination against disabled people.
The Bill is drafted in such a way that indirect as well as direct discrimination can be dealt with. We have adopted a definition of discrimination that leaves disabled people with practical solutions to the real problems that they face—however they are categorised. A situation where dogs were not admitted to a cafe, with the effect that blind people would be unable to enter it, would be a prima facie case of indirect discrimination against disabled people and would be unlawful.
The proposals amount to huge change. While recognising that that change will be welcome to disabled people, it must also be acknowledged that many in the


business sector will be apprehensive. The business community is entitled to know as precisely as possible what is expected of it. The courtroom is not the place for such matters to be decided—it is up to the Government to make the information available. The Bill shows that the Government are prepared to face up to that responsibility, and it has been drafted to provide for maximum certainty.
One characteristic that sets the Government's Bill apart from alternatives which have been proposed is that it includes provisions that will allow the Government to tie down as precisely as possible what employers and service providers will have to do to comply with the law, as well as providing for maximum flexibility of approach.
The Bill will allow us to specify exactly what is meant by terms such as "auxiliary aid" and "reasonable alternative provision". We will be able to specify particular instances when it would, or would not, be reasonable for service providers or employers to take a particular course of action.
Crucially, we will also be able to make explicit precisely how much money a service provider needs to spend in any particular case on making his service more accessible. Under the Bill it will not be up to the courts to decide whether a business would be subjected to "undue hardship"—whatever that might mean, it is certainly a recipe for uncertainty and dispute.
As a consequence, we are able to tie down the cost of our proposals for access to services. The reason why the maximum cost of the Government's proposal can be estimated at around £1.3 billion is that, unlike other Bills that have been presented, it is not open-ended—it is not a blank cheque. Having consulted further, we will be able to set a limit which is appropriate to the needs for disabled people and realistic for business.
The need for certainty is why there will be a further round of consultation before the regulations under the Act are laid—to ensure that the detailed proposals are easily understood, affordable and fair.
We shall consult on the contents of the code of practice for employers, which will draw on the extensive experience of the Employment Service's placing, assessment and counselling teams in helping disabled people and their employers overcome any practical effects of their disabilities in a job. We shall consult on what it will be reasonable to expect those in each service sector to do to provide an accessible service. We shall also consult on the financial limit.
The employment right, a provision that replaces an existing requirement on employers, is likely to commence by spring 1996. Aspects of the access provisions, such as the prohibition on refusing to serve a disabled person, will also commence in 1996. We shall start as much as possible as soon as possible. However, the more stringent duties on service providers, such as the duty to make physical alterations, represent totally new departures. It is likely, therefore, that a phasing-in period of perhaps five to 10 years will be appropriate to ensure that businesses have sufficient time to gear up for their new responsibilities. That issue will also be the subject of consultation.
I know that we shall hear this afternoon about the exclusion of education and transport vehicles from the right of access. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has already referred to it. Their

exclusion has been a focus of criticism, yet it would be flying in the face of common sense not to accord special treatment in those areas.
The Education Act 1993 made provision for a biennial survey of the accessibility of schools—due to report this summer—which may help to identify areas where better access may be needed. In tandem with existing programmes of improvement, the Government will also bring forward proposals to encourage providers of education to devise imaginative, cost-effective projects aimed at increasing accessibility.
The potential interaction between proposals to include education in the Bill and the 1993 Act is unclear, but it would certainly cause severe difficulties for local education authorities. There would be conflicts between the responsibilities of the local authority as set out in the 1993 Act and the idea that adaptations should not cause the provider "undue hardship"—a stipulation that is very difficult to define in terms of schools and local education authorities. The provisions would undermine local authorities' planning role and increase overall costs.
The inclusion of education might have the effect of not allowing schools to teach children with special needs separately, preventing them from benefiting from supplementary help or from gradual inclusion into mainstream tuition. It would replace a carefully worked out system, which was established as a result of a great deal of consultation, with a set of provisions inappropriate to efficient education.
As for public transport vehicles, there is only one sensible way to require accessible vehicles, and that is on a replacement basis. To fix a timetable for the manufacturers of all types of transport to adhere to would be folly, and could lead to services being withdrawn. Instead, we shall require all new buses to be of a low-floor construction, to match new rolling stock that is already built to an accessible design, and the fully accessible designs of purpose-built taxis, which have been available since the mid-1980s.
It is obvious nonsense to suggest that excluding transport vehicles from the Bill denies disabled people access to transport. The Government's record on initiatives in that area is second to none. For example, all new licensed taxis in London are already wheelchair-accessible. By 1 January 2000, all taxis in London will be wheelchair-accessible. More than 60 other licensing authorities have mandated for all or part of their fleets to be wheelchair-accessible. Other improvements include the accessibility of the new light railway systems and the inter-city network, ranging over to the orange badge scheme and the contribution of Motability to the independent personal mobility of disabled people.
The key is that those people who argue for the inclusion of transport vehicles appear to have ruled out any thought that different treatment might be appropriate in certain areas. Most sensible people will think the "one size fits all" approach to be rigid and counter-productive.

Mr. Roger Berry: Does the Minister accept that the argument that he just made is simply incorrect? Those who supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have argued consistently that consultation on the codes of practice in that Bill would enable those issues to be explored in great detail, and the


Minister is not here arguing for special treatment for transport. The case that he just made is not for special treatment for transport.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman recognises that I am not arguing for special treatment for transport, and I am pleased to have his recognition of that. I am saying that there are practical and sensible ways of bringing about radical change in the accessibility of our transport systems in this country—change that is already well under way—without legislation. The most flexible, sensible and practical way to do it is outside the scope of legislative requirements.
We have seen significant improvements in access provision across all transport areas, but the benefits of those developments have sometimes been lost because of inaccessible infrastructure. That has often been the weak link in what is otherwise becoming a more accessible service. Transport infrastructure is covered by the right of access to goods and services. The measure will help us in securing the fully accessible transport system which is our ultimate aim.
The Government's approach is the right one—it also presents the perfect opportunity for Parliament to discuss and frame legislation to ensure that disabled people get the Bill that they deserve. I believe that the Government's proposals are clear, in that they give people specific obligations and rights in a way that the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East would not. They are workable in that they provide for flexibility and practical solutions to distinct problems—the hon. Member's Bill does not. They are fair in that they end discrimination while considering the interests of others—the hon. Member's Bill does not. That is why I will be asking the House to support this Bill and not the one that he has presented to the House.
Part IV deals with the national disability council. The Opposition's amendment claims that the Bill provides only an ineffective enforcement procedure. I do not accept that argument and I think that the analogy with the existing commissions is flawed.
To a much greater extent than for women, or even ethnic minorities, the problems faced by disabled people in securing fair treatment in society are individualistic. Disabilities pose—or are wrongly perceived to impose—specific practical limitations on what a disabled person can do. Overcoming such problems requires practical, individually tailored solutions. I do not believe that it is an area where the bringing of class legal actions has substantial relevance.
Only a small minority of sex discrimination cases—fewer than 10 per cent.—which are resolved in the courts are supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission. As for the much-vaunted test cases, we believe that there is a better way of reviewing and keeping the law up to date without any of the horrific legal costs that such cases can accumulate. We recognise that the effects of the Disability Discrimination Bill, when enacted, will need to be sustained and reviewed to ensure that it is having the intended effect and that changes in society's attitude and behaviour towards disabled people need to be kept under review so that discrimination can be countered effectively, now and in future.
That is why we need the national disability council. It will work closely with existing organisations representing the interests of disabled people. Its primary duties will be to.advise the Government on measures relating to the elimination of discrimination and the drawing up of codes of practice to help with the interpretation of the Bill. The question of who should sit on the NDC has yet to he decided, but it will almost certainly include members of representative committees and organisations, business representatives, and disabled people themselves. Another reason why disabled people will be well protected under the legislation is that there will be, in the sector of service provision, somewhere for them to turn if they feel that they have been discriminated against—to go alongside the existing support network for employees.
The Bill makes provision for the establishment of an advice and support service to help disabled people secure their rights and to promote the settlement of disputes arising under the right of access to goods and services. We intend that the advice and support should be locally available so as to be of maximum benefit to disabled people and easier to use than the centralised service offered by existing commissions in other areas.
My Department will support the advisers with detailed guidance on the right of access. There will be procedures to help disabled people to set down the details of their complaint so as to make plain the precise legal provision that they think has been infringed. Their complaint would then be put forcefully to the trader accused of discrimination.
We have begun discussions with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on the possibility of helping citizens advice bureaux to be better able to advise and support disabled people and to provide the service that we have in mind. Those discussions will address such issues as the detailed nature of the services, the possible involvement of disability organisations in ensuring that staff are properly trained and can provide an effective service, the degree to which citizens advice bureaux are accessible to disabled people and how any deficiencies may be remedied.
However, in those cases where legal redress is sought, the county court's power to award an injunction will he extremely important for the purposes of the Bill. Although damages will be available, what disabled people want is an increasingly accessible environment and a change in people's attitudes. That is our objective in bringing forward the Bill and that is what it will provide. Our enforcement strategy is the right one in the circumstances.

Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: I have already done so, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more in acknowledgement of his involvement in these affairs.

Mr. Barnes: I have written to the Minister about the role of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service upon which he is now elaborating. The letter suggests that we are not very far down the path in the process and that all the ideas in the Government's legislation must be developed considerably and then finalised. Surely there is a difference between a private Member's Bill which tries


to set up some structure or arrangement and Government legislation which should tell us exactly what their plans are.

Mr. Hague: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well down the track in developing our plans. I have been able to announce to the House today considerably more progress than I set out in my letter to him—I know that it was written yesterday, but I thought that it would be better to inform the House of Commons of our proposals rather than leak it to the hon. Gentleman by letter last night. That is why I have set out our plans to the whole House today.
We are well down the track in our discussions. We are taking the sometimes painstaking time and trouble to ensure that the system works and will provide a locally available source of advice and assistance for disabled people. I think that it is worth taking that time and trouble because the prize is considerable: if the service works, it will provide tangible help to large numbers of people.

Sir Donald Thompson: Is not my hon. Friend trying to make what is reasonable and normal become acceptable and commonplace?

Mr. Hague: Yes. I am trying to frame our legislation in such a way as to require people to do things differently and also to change attitudes in the country without creating a backlash against the objectives that we are trying to secure. That is why we have framed the legislation in that way.
I make special mention of two aspects of the Bill which I propose to amend in Committee to take account of representations made since the Bill was published. Firstly, the Bill applies to Great Britain, with power to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. It has always been the Government's intention that those new rights should apply throughout the United Kingdom. We also want them to take effect in Northern Ireland from the same date as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
We expect hon. Members from Northern Ireland to be able to take part in any discussion of the Bill's provisions. However, a number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland—including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is in the Chamber now—have sought stronger assurances on those points. To avoid doubt, the Government have decided to extend the Bill to cover Northern Ireland from the outset. The necessary amendments, including any local provisions required, will be tabled in Committee.
Secondly, some hon. Members have said that the sale and letting of property should be covered specifically in the Bill. The Government agree in principle. We will need to consider the details of how the legislation might be framed, and I will address that matter during the Committee.
I believe that attitudes to disability and disabled people are changing. In the world of work, people are starting to appreciate that disabled people have strengths and weaknesses in the same way as everybody else, and that an individual's disabilities are not nearly as important as his or her abilities. In the service sector, people are beginning to realise that making services and facilities accessible to disabled people is pure good business sense.
The Bill shows that the Government are determined to play a major role in maintaining that transformation of attitudes. We are determined to tackle the frustrations

which disabled people encounter in attempting to do the things that many of us take for granted, and we are determined to do so across the board.
We have listened to disabled people and their representatives and we have listened to employers. We have built on the Government's already impressive record of helping disabled people by producing a Bill which represents an historic advance for disabled people. It establishes a new right not to be discriminated against in the field of employment, it establishes a new right of access to goods and services, and it establishes a new national disability council. It is a Bill of which we can he proud, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
That this House declines to give the Disability (Discrimination) Bill a Second Reading because it believes that the Bill is not an acceptable or enforceable measure to ensure civil rights for all disabled people because its employment provisions would extend to less than five per cent. of firms, because it fails to provide for a comprehensive definition of disability or for a Disability Rights Commission to work towards the elimination of discrimination, because it specifically excludes access to the means of public transport and because it fails to make unlawful discrimination in the sale and letting of premises.
I begin by thanking Madam Speaker for her very clear statement on procedure at the beginning of the debate. Whatever the decision of the House today, Opposition Members look forward with confidence to 10 February when we shall support the Bill presented by my hon. Friend for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) because we realise that that is the only civil rights Bill before the House this Session.
The Bill that the Government have laid before the House today is not so much a measure to help disabled people as a measure to help Ministers get out of the hole that they dug themselves last year. Their Bill is, above all, a public relations exercise. They certainly need to improve their public image, but it will take a good deal of positive publicity and a much more positive Bill than this one to undo the damage done by the shambles that we witnessed last Session.
Since their obstruction in the House of disabled people's civil rights, the Government have spent £1 million on advertising, trying to project a more positive image, but as 6.5 million disabled people, their families and carers know, the image and the reality are very different. The Bill before us today shows that the Government have moved less far than they would pretend and nowhere near so far as disabled people want.
Last week, I heard the Minister claim, as he did again today, that he has brought about strong and wide-ranging legislation to deal with discrimination against disabled people. What we have before us, however, is neither strong nor wide ranging: it is weak and narrow and, worst of all, it actually introduces a new discrimination between different groups of disabled people, as the Minister confirmed today. It is a Bill of half measures and unenforceable concessions. The Minister said that his Bill represented a great stride forward for the Government in their approach to disability, but it is no such thing: at best, it is a great step sideways. Indeed, in terms of the employment of disabled people, it represents one step forward and two steps back.
As the Government have at least entered the debate, we should remember where they were when they began. In 1990, Her Majesty's Government told the World Health Organisation that they were
not convinced that the goal of integration and equality can be particularly advanced by any all-embracing or generalised law proclaiming the rights of disabled people.
In the same year, the Department of Employment—I understand that an Employment Minister is to reply to the debate—also expressed misgivings about the very idea of disabled people's rights when it said:
disability, unlike race or sex, can be relevant to job performance".
The same document stated:
Anti-discrimination legislation is unlikely to be effective in achieving policy objectives and might be counter-productive by making a constructive approach by employers less likely.
That was said against all the evidence of the American experience. It was not even an argument that persuaded President Bush who, unlike the Minister, seemed to see the benefits rather than what the Minister described today as the burdens involved. It is from such a backwoods of indifference or even hostility to the rights of disabled people that the Government have begun to emerge. It was not until January 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) presented his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, that the then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) told the House:
We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1251.]
Until that time, the Government were unwilling to recognise the problem. They have shifted their position because the pressure of public opinion has left them little choice.
The history of efforts made by Members of both Houses goes back many years. Lord Ashley presented a Bill while a Member of this House 14 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) also made several attempts. Lord Longford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe made memorable contributions to winning a majority in Parliament for civil rights for disabled people.
Last year, the pressure finally grew too great even for the present Government to withstand, and the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) dragged the Government kicking and screaming into the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members were lobbied extensively by their constituents, and thousands of people came to Westminster to lobby their elected representatives. My hon. Friend's Bill won overwhelming backing by organisations of and for disabled people, received its Second Reading by 231 votes to nil and returned from Committee even stronger than before.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I was a teller when the Bill received its Second Reading and I recall that some Conservative Members who are here today to say that the principles behind that Bill were wrong nevertheless voted for its Second Reading.

Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's recollection. As he reminds the House, the true number in favour of the Bill was 235.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I was present on that occasion and I recall that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said that he was prepared to emasculate the Bill—not his words, but I paraphrase his remarks—to remove the onerous conditions that it would apply to businesses.

Mr. Berry: That is cobblers.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, makes the right reply: the observation was, indeed, cobblers and unworthy of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).
After the Bill's Second Reading, the Government chose to frustrate the will of the House. The right hon. Member for Chelsea had his chance to prove that Government recognition of the need to act against discrimination was more than skin deep, but he did not take that chance because he was not allowed to do so. Since then, we have seen more of the same—a Government with no real commitment to or understanding of the issue giving ground reluctantly under pressure from all parts of the House and the country
The Government were under such enormous pressure that last July Ministers offered to open formal consultations. Whatever they were told by those whom they consulted, the Government were clearly intent on preventing another civil rights Bill coming before the House if they possibly could. That is why we have this half-hearted Bill before us today, which still leaves disabled people as second-class citizens.
The fact that the Government have presented a Bill of their own, however inadequate, nevertheless represents a victory for civil rights campaigners and is a substantial climbdown from the positions taken by Ministers and certain Conservative Members in the past. Today we have evidence of the Government's profound embarrassment on this issue. They now grudgingly accept that anti-discrimination legislation can be effective in achieving policy objectives, that it does not make a constructive approach by employers less likely, and that it can advance the goal of equality for disabled people. But the Government's Bill does not embrace the demands that disabled people's organisations are making on behalf of millions of people—demands which are reflected in our reasoned amendment.
After the evasions of the past, the Minister said last week that it was time for the Government to make a statement on discrimination against disabled people, just as the Americans, with their Disabilities Act, have done in the United States. That is what the Minister claims that the Bill will do, but the statement made by this Bill falls a long way short of the far-reaching and comprehensive statement of principle that a majority in both Houses wanted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is all about money.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, who makes an enormous contribution to disability issues, reminds us of the Tory argument of cost. He will be reassured to learn that I intend to return to that later.
The Bill says that disabled people have the right to equal treatment in employment. Only a week ago, the Prime Minister—no less—told my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that this was not a limited Bill because, as he put it, the Bill
carries rights for disabled people when they are unfairly discriminated against in employment."—[Official Report, 17 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 581.]
The Prime Minister could not have chosen a better example to show just why this is such a limited Bill, taking away with one hand while making limited concessions with the other.
The whole truth is that the Bill carries rights only for some disabled people when they are unfairly discriminated against in employment. If a disabled person happens to work for a small firm, that person gains no rights at all. If the job for which he or she applies is with a firm employing fewer than 20 people, the right to equal treatment simply does not apply. The Prime Minister highlighted employment because, we are told, that is the centrepiece of the Government's legislation. They have given this area pride of place, while relegating some others, such as education and transport, to the White Paper, and excluding others, such as discrimination by landlords, altogether.
I did not regard today's rather weak comment on the latter subject by the Minister as falling even into the category of the sort of mild concessions offered elsewhere.

Mr. Hague: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it was not a weak comment but an agreement by the Government to include sale and letting, if that was what he was referring to, in the Bill. They will be included.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned education. Perhaps he can clear up any confusion which might arise from the Opposition amendment—it does not mention education—and confirm whether it is Labour party policy to include education in any right of access, and also tell us what assessment he has made of the public expenditure consequences of so doing.

Mr. Clarke: I find it astonishing that the present Minister, of all people, should refer to education when he did not even include it in his consultation document last July. Not once in our debates has he referred to the fact that fewer than one in 1,000 such teachers has access to schools. Nor has he referred to the fact that the Bill does nothing for further and higher education. Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I stress that I am happy to support the measures for education in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and I hope that, as a result of today's debate, the Minister, too, will find them acceptable.
Let us be absolutely clear: what the Government propose in employment will not outlaw discrimination. In relation to large companies, the proposals will merely change the legal rights that disabled people already have. I shall return to that point later. Meanwhile, the Government are saying for the first time that discrimination on the part of small firms is perfectly in order. That is not a great stride forward: it is not a stride forward at all, and it sends out all the wrong signals to employers. Instead of saying, "You must not discriminate against disabled people," the Government seem to be

saying, "You should not discriminate so long as you can afford not to do so." In the words of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation:
Small employers will not be covered by the Act and will therefore be free to discriminate.
A disabled job applicant or employee will not receive a guarantee of legal protection against discrimination under the Bill—none whatever. He or she will be told, "If you want legal protection, you must work for a large firm." If the job is provided by one of the 96 per cent. of firms that are exempt from the Bill, that is just too bad.

Mr. Hague: I thank the hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his promise to give way to me twice.Why does he think that the US Congress decided to exempt firms with fewer than 15 employees from the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Mr. Clarke: I think that the former Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Chelsea, will have read at his leisure the excellent book written by Victoria Scott, entitled "Lessons from America". If he has now received the answer, I hope that in time the present Minister will receive it as well. If the Minister and his hon. Friends behind him have any doubt, I advise them to read the responses, which were also about implementation. If the Minister does not understand that now, I do not have much faith that he will understand it in Committee.
This goes to the heart of our objection to the main thrust of this thoroughly inadequate Bill. What disabled people want is a right to equal treatment, not mere concessions. But the Bill means that only concessions are on offer. The Government have conceded that there should be no discrimination by certain classes of employer, but they have not provided a right which applies equally to all disabled people. They are discriminating between one group of disabled people and another.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is making a big song and dance about firms with fewer than 20 employees, but they are already exempt from the quota arrangements, so there is no change in the position for them. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point altogether. A report produced by the Trades Union Congress last summer referred to its concern about the lack of job opportunities in the public sector. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some Scottish district councils and Scottish health authorities do not employ any registered disabled people at all? The TUC pointed out that a further 100,000 people should he employed in the public sector to meet the quota.

Mr. Clarke: Of course I welcome the views of the TUC, and I very much regret that the Government do not. I also very much regret that they do not even take on board the views of the Confederation of British Industry, which described the Government's proposals as "out of harmony". Perhaps just as importantly, the Employers Forum on Disability—not, I believe, a body affiliated to the Labour party—said:
There should be no exclusion from the Bill's provisions on grounds of an enterprise's size. It cannot be right for a disabled person to be discriminated against just because an enterprise has fewer than 20 employees. Just as small companies are covered by race and gender legislation, so they, too, should be included in this Bill.


If the hon. Gentleman and the House have any doubts about the importance of that representation, I point out that among the numerous organisations represented by that august body are Barclays bank, the Benefits Agency, Boots, the British United Provident Association, the City of Westminster, the Inland Revenue, Reuters and many others.

Ms Mildred Gordon: Are not small businesses the fastest-growing sector of industry today, with about 30 per cent. of employees being employed in small businesses? Does not exempting those businesses from the responsibility of employing disabled people therefore exclude a large section of industry?

Mr. Clarke: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is right. Small firms employ 36 persons in every 100. That is one of the arguments that persuaded the Americans to set a timetable, and also one of the arguments which persuaded almost everybody who submitted views to the Minister to agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that not once in his speech did the Minister refer to any specific representation on that point from any organisation or professional body.
It is not even that the Bill is the result of several qualifications by employers. In response to the very consultation exercise that I have mentioned, the CBI told the Minister that the cut-offs and exclusions for small firms would be out of harmony with the general thrust of the proposed legislation. They are certainly out of harmony with the needs of disabled people. The Bill makes no positive provision for the vast majority of firms, which employ a third of the national labour force; it tells them simply to please themselves.
The failure to provide rights equally to all disabled people is the essential difference between the Bill and the kind of measure that we want to see. We want a civil rights Bill which is effective, enforceable and comprehensive. What we are offered is a piecemeal measure which will be effective only in certain areas, which is full of ifs, buts and maybes, and which will lack the clout to ensure that it is fully implemented in practice. In the words of the "Rights Now" campaign, which has worked so hard to achieve a real measure of civil rights for disabled people, the Bill is ineffective, unenforceable and piecemeal.
The kind of measure that we shall support when the opportunity arises will start from the principle that no one should suffer discrimination on the grounds of disability. That is what the House and the nation want to see. That is what Americans, Australians and Canadians already have, and that is the road down which Britain should go.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed because the statement of principle on which it is founded is that equal treatment should be provided only by those who can afford it. We had an example this very day at an industrial tribunal in Skipton this morning. A young man suffering from cerebral palsy was considered by his large employer, the Skipton building society, not to be communicating properly, so he was dismissed. In the opinion of the young man and his family, the company was guilty of constructive dismissal and they rightly took the matter to a tribunal. Sadly, the proceedings this morning were

adjourned until next week until it is known whether the family can afford representation. What kind of equality in human rights is that?
The Government's basic premise is that disabled people do not have equal rights but instead should be grateful for whatever concessions the Government choose to offer.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Has the hon. Gentleman just made a commitment to a future Labour Government introducing legislation along the lines of the private Member's Bill? If so, has he consulted his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about the cost implications?

Mr. Clarke: I have given way generously and I do not propose to do so again, unless it is to the Minister, to whom I am prepared to give way more than the twice that I promised.
I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East, although they were unnecessary because at the last Labour party conference, on live television, my hon. Friend confirmed that the next Labour Government will proudly present such a Bill.
People who suffer discrimination because of disability are, sadly, not confined to those with an actual disability. Prejudice, by definition, is not restricted to the precise legal and medical definition in the Bill. Too many of our citizens know that it is enough to have a history of medical problems to suffer discrimination, and many refuse to accept that that should be the case in a modern society, but that is not enough to benefit from the limited legal protection that the Bill provides, as we saw in the case that I mentioned earlier.
MIND, the National Association for Mental Health, tells us that in its experience discrimination on the basis of a history of a past mental illness is one of the most common instances of discrimination, but such discrimination will not be covered by the Bill. An employer, landlord or service provider may discriminate against people because they appear disabled or because of some condition that they have suffered from in the past, but the law will not act on the victim's behalf unless he or she can prove disability under the Bill.
Schedule 1, remarkably, runs to two and a half pages, seeking to define who is or is not disabled and who will or will not benefit from the limited protection against discrimination that the Bill is supposed to provide. So narrow is the Government's definition of disabled person that they even need to include in schedule 1 a paragraph asserting that people already registered as disabled will continue to be regarded as disabled under the new legislation—hardly a massive step forward. As the "Rights Now" campaign has pointed out, people with histories of mental illness will be able to claim legal protection against discrimination only if they can show that they have not recovered from that illness—hardly a comprehensive measure against discrimination.
In the same spirit of half-hearted concessions, the Minister continues to set his face against the creation of a disability rights commission. That is the over-arching and most critical weakness—and my heavens, there are many—in the Bill.
Employment again provides the best example. With regard to larger companies, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East again last week, that the Bill gives disabled people


the right to complain to an industrial tribunal when they feel that unlawful discrimination has occurred."—[Official Report, 17 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 581.]
What the Prime Minister failed to mention was that the law at present requires large firms to provide a quota of places for disabled workers—a provision that the Bill will abolish.
We all know that the quota has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.There is a case for enhancing and enforcing the quota as Scope, formerly the Spastics Society, recommends. To abolish the quota when introducing its intended replacement, before the new system has even been set up, is hardly a great stride forward for disabled people's rights. Indeed, it is a great step backwards. I have seen no evidence that any of the organisations representing the disabled or any of the professional associations welcome the abolition of the quota system in those circumstances.
Let us consider the new system at the heart of the Bill—the mechanisms that are supposed to render quotas unnecessary by ending discrimination against disabled workers employed by larger companies. As Scope said, one good thing about the quota was that the onus was on employers and the Government rather than on disabled people themselves. Under the new system, the onus will be on a disabled person to seek redress through an industrial tribunal. There will be no independent statutory body to back such a claim and no legal aid will be available to improve the chances of success.
In the case of employment discrimination by large firms, the Government's proposals will merely replace one ineffective system with another. The Government passed up the opportunity to bring about real change, not only by excluding smaller firms from their legislation, but by failing to back up the legislation with a body that has real powers. A comprehensive civil rights Bill must, by definition, have at its heart the means for disabled people to enforce their rights. The Bill before us lacks any such mechanism. It is not just an opportunity to create enforceable measures that has been missed: it is worse than that.
The Government's Bill is designed around the concept of an advisory council because the driving force behind the Government's measure is the spirit of mere concessions, not the assertion of civil rights that disabled persons are entitled to experience. If the Government wanted to give the full force of law to the rights of disabled people, they would wish to do so in a way that would be effective. If they want to throw a sop in the direction of disabled people's rights, they will be happy to create an advisory talking shop and other powerless structures, which is what they plan to do in the Bill. The Minister talks of bureaucracy even as he creates structures without power.
Disabled people must have the legal means to sustain the rights conferred on them by Parliament. It is not enough to say that this is the law and the courts will enforce it if one can afford to take the risk of raising litigation. The opportunity exists to give those rights the backing of a body with powers designed for that purpose, but the opportunity is not being taken by the Government in their Bill. The national disability council that the Minister proposes would not be such a body: it would be empowered to consult and to advise, but it will not be empowered to do any more than that. It is explicitly and specifically denied that power.
The Government have said that, under the Bill, the council's responsibility will be
to investigate any complaint which may be the subject of proceedings.
The Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, by contrast, have precisely those powers. They have a remit to pursue people who break the law. That is a major disincentive to people who would discriminate—and that is how it should be. As the Government well know, from the point of view of an employer or service provider who would prefer to discriminate against a disabled job applicant or customer, the prospect of being challenged by a powerful and independent commission, acting with the full majesty of the law, is a good deal more intimidating than the prospect of being taken to court or to an industrial tribunal by one individual, assuming that the individual concerned can afford it.
The provision of investigative powers to a commission has further implications. The Commission for Racial Equality told the Minister:
The Commission's investigative powers have enabled it not only to uncover incidents of discrimination, but also to highlight examples of 'good practice' in its promotional work and have informed the development of its Codes of Practice".
A commission with powers to investigate discrimination is also in a much better position to fulfil the rest of its duties. An advisory council with no such powers is not directly engaged in implementation of the law. It therefore cannot be active in promoting the rights of disabled people, but must remain on the sidelines while implementing and interpreting the law is left to lawyers and those who can afford access to them.
The Minister offers locally accessible services of advice and conciliation, which are of course welcome, but conciliation has no force without a legal mandate behind it. A law without the means of enforcement is barely a law at all. It is merely a voluntary code of practice which can be broken with impunity.
The Government's Bill focuses on employment, but excludes one third of the work force from its provisions. It claims to outlaw discrimination, but lacks the independent and effective body which could enforce equal rights. Instead of a comprehensive approach, based on civil rights, it offers a piecemeal approach designed to head off more far-reaching change while making as few concessions as possible.
The Bill's faults do not end there. As the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation pointed out:
The long title of the … Bill is drafted restrictively, so that it refers solely to employment and the provision of goods and service. This leaves out large areas of social life".
On transport, the Government have chosen to concede to disabled people a right of access to premises, but they say that vehicles must be dealt with separately. A citizen therefore has the right to go to a station, but no right to get on the train. There is no good reason for such a split.A serious effort to prohibit discrimination in transport could readily include both vehicles and premises in the same measure, as the civil rights Bills that have come before the House have done, and as organisations such as Mencap argue should now be done. Of course, we should be flexible and allow access to be built in for vehicles at the replacement or renovation stage, but we should set a


timetable for doing so and we should start from the premise that disabled people have the right to catch the train and not just to watch it leave the station.
In education, too, the Bill fails to deliver. It has nothing to say on that subject, and the Government's White Paper issued at the same time is not much better. The Government will provide a right of access to new schools and to extensions, but not to existing schools, as we know from the Education Act 1993. If the Government were busy building new schools, that might be more significant, but that is not happening and the vast majority of our children will continue to be taught in old school buildings, the majority of which do not even have toilets that are suitably adapted for disabled children to use.
The Bill has nothing to say about discrimination in the sale and letting of premises. Despite the Minister's statement, there is nothing in the Bill on that. We know, however, that such discrimination exists.
The Bill also has nothing to say about removing discrimination in the exercise of civic rights and in the fulfilment of civic duties, so nothing will be done about the appalling position whereby disabled citizens have to be carried into polling stations to vote for their elected representatives because the returning officer is not obliged to make polling stations accessible.
The Government make recommendations about changes to community care. It is a measure of their failure in that area that for the past nine years they have had an Act on the statute book—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation Act 1986—which could have prevented the release of people into the community who then find that no community care is available. Half of the Act has not been implemented, and nothing in what is now proposed begins to deal with the real crisis that the Government's mishandling of care in the community has caused.
Supporters of the Government's measure have a good deal to say about cost, and some of them have done so today. That seems to be their chief concern. Last year, the Government produced a wholly spurious figure of £17 billion as the cost of implementing the civil rights Bill then before the House. Those figures were utterly discredited by the "Rights Now" campaign and others, who found numerous examples of double counting and gross overestimates. The Department of the Environment's contribution to that costing admitted that it was a "speculative guesstimate"; yet it accounted for more than half the supposed cost.
The Government have introduced a Bill of their own which allegedly goes more than halfway to ending discrimination, and which includes a compliance cost assessment of a mere £1.5 billion. The kindest description of that assessment might be "creative accountancy". It would be more useful to have a cost benefit analysis which balanced the cost of improvements against the wider economic benefits of involving disabled people fully on equal terms as employees, customers and citizens.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will, but for the last time.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of community care, and about costs and benefits. Is he aware that discussions between the Rowntree Foundation and York city council have revealed that more than 60 per cent. of the council's budget for disabled facilities grants in 1993–94 could have been saved if the owner-occupied houses involved had been built to accessible lifetime home standards? Is that not one illustration of the fact that anti-discrimination legislation should be seen as an investment rather than a cost or a burden?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has made a constructive contribution, and I am sure that he will continue to do so as he reflects on how he will vote in the Division.
A recent study by the "Rights Now" campaign calculated that the cost of under-employing disabled people was between £2.75 billion and £5 billion, taking into account the tax revenues forgone and the welfare benefits which, as the Americans and others have already found, could have been saved. Other enormous benefits would accrue from effective measures to improve access to goods and services, but nowhere does the Government's thinking reflect that.
It is difficult to take Government claims about cost too seriously. I recently asked the Minister for an account of expenditure under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—a measure that I know very well. Although the Act has been on the statute book for nine years, the Government are incapable of providing figures to show what it has cost. Patently unable to calculate the amount spent on an Act of Parliament, the Government still claim to have estimated accurately the cost of a proposed Bill. I believe that the onus of proof in regard to cost and benefits lies with those who oppose comprehensive civil rights, but the Government have adduced no convincing argument so far.
The Government's Bill is plainly a bad Bill. Its motivation is crystal clear: it is designed to block the passage of one infinitely better, as the Government have been doing for 13 years. Ministers should go away and try again; they should return to the House when they have endorsed the principle of civil rights for disabled people, and when they are ready to support a Bill that is enforceable, effective and comprehensive. Until they do, they will not have the support of Opposition Members, and they will not win the support of the 6.5 million disabled citizens who have waited for far too long.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Just under five hours are available for the debate, and no fewer than 20 right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch my eye, including those who will make the winding-up speeches. I hope that, if hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called early bear that in mind, I shall be able to call most of those who wish to speak.

Sir John Hannam: This is a momentous day for me, and, I believe, for disabled people. We are debating legislation that will actually reach the statute


book—legislation presented by the Government, with a commitment to eliminate discrimination against disabled people.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was wrong to imply that this Bill resulted purely from the activities and events of last July. It was 18 months ago, in the summer of 1993, that the Prime Minister set in motion the events that led to it. The House may recall that, following a meeting with leading members of the all-party disablement group, he asked the then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to begin a series of discussions with members of the group to discuss steps that could be taken to remove discrimination.
Throughout the ensuing months—during the remainder of the summer, and into the beginning of last year—a series of meetings took place at which it became apparent that, while there was no disagreement about the principle that discrimination existed and should be removed, there was basic disagreement about how best to achieve that objective. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), articulated—as he had to—the Government's view that progress could best be achieved on a Department-by-Department basis by means of education and exhortation: the piecemeal method, as we called it, which both main parties had used for some years.
Along with my colleagues in the all-party group—and, as it turned out later, a large majority of Members of Parliament—I believed strongly that a comprehensive anti-discrimination approach was necessary, and that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was the right vehicle for that approach. We and the Government were rather like two trains heading in the same direction but on parallel tracks, quite likely eventually to bypass our common objective. That was what concerned me at the time.
As one who admires his Government for the tremendous progress that they have achieved in helping disabled people to live with increasing independence, I vowed that I would do all that I could to ensure that the Government managed to introduce their own legislation in the current Parliament—or, failing that, that such legislation would be a manifesto commitment.
That is why today is a momentous day for me. Even during the dramatic events of last spring and summer when we were fighting to make progress with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I sensed that the battle within the Government over the principle was being won, and that we were on the verge of a breakthrough. That breakthrough came with the announcement of a full consultation period with the promise of legislation at the end, either by Government or in a private Member's Bill. I argued strongly against the latter course: we all know how difficult it is to get a Back Bencher's measure of such size and importance through all its parliamentary stages.
At last, however, the smoke screens were being blown away: arguments that comprehensive legislation was not necessary, that the costs were too high—the ridiculous figure of £17.5 billion was suggested at one stage—or that business organisations were against the idea. In fact, the Confederation of British Industry and the Employers Forum on Disability were in favour, as was the Law Society. The Bill is a marked advance on the consultation paper, and is accepted by all disability organisations as

such. I am immensely thrilled: I believe that it represents a landmark for disabled people, and that it is positive legislation.
Before I deal with the Bill and the role of my hon. Friend the Minister in it, let me express my thanks and admiration for what was done by the previous incumbent, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, who held his office for many years. Throughout the difficult period leading to last summer's confrontations, he never ceased to give full support to the cause of serving the interests of disabled people. Although, because of various events, he was not able to deliver the final legislative package, and although timing was not on his side, his heart was in the right place, and he never failed to offer constructive help and advice to the all-party disablement group.
I strongly support the Bill, and all the documents from the disability organisations suggest that they do as well. However, like most new Government Bills of this nature, it has its deficiencies, especially in comparison with the all-embracing provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The House must recognise those deficiencies, and we must try to improve the legislation. The disability organisations have made that clear in their representations to all hon. Members.

Mr. Berry: Which disability rights organisations support the Government's Bill in preference to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?

Sir John Hannam: As we are dealing with Government legislation, and as representations from all the disability organisations sensibly concentrate on that legislation—as does the all-party group—it has not been a question of choosing one Bill or the other. To be fair to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), however, all of the organisations have made clear the division between the two Bills and which Bill they prefer. I am concentrating my attention on the Bill that we are debating today. It is not a question of the House arguing the pros and cons of the two separate Bills. I have supported both Bills, and I shall continue to support the concepts of both.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman suggests that disabled people's organisations support the Disability Discrimination Bill. Is not it relevant to note that every organisation both of and for disabled people prefer the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Can the hon. Gentleman name a single organisation of or for disabled people which does not support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?

Sir John Hannam: A letter from the National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux to Members states:
The CAB service welcomes the introduction of measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. For too long disabled people have had to rely on voluntary approaches. Legislation is desperately needed. However, it is disappointing that the need for legislation is recognised only in a limited number of areas. The CAB service hopes the Government will take the opportunity to introduce further measures on transport and education.
That is the gist of what we are arguing about today. If the hon. Member for Kingswood can name any Government Bill in this area which has been totally satisfactory to the House in its initial stages, I would very much welcome hearing about it.
It is right for the House to concentrate on the Disability Discrimination Bill, and to make it more effective as it passes through its stages in the House. Many questions have been asked, the answers to which will—more than anything—determine whether we have got it right.
For example, will cinemas, restaurants or taxis be able in future to ban blind people or people in wheelchairs? The answer to that—if we are getting the legislation right—has to be no. Will buildings and meeting halls be able to ban certain groups, not because they lack access but because they are considered to be undesirable? The answer must be that they cannot under any circumstances be allowed to continue that policy. Will disabled people continue to be rejected from serving as magistrates or jurors, and will they find that they cannot vote in elections or attend county courts?
We have heard about the importance of the county court procedures in the provisions in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. The NACAB briefing points out that, in a survey that it carried out in 1993 of 22 representative schemes in county courts,
only one bureau reported any provision for people who are visually impaired, only two were aware of any provision for deaf people, six said that there was no provision for wheelchair users and twelve bureaux reported no accessible toilets in the courts.
We must make sure that courts are properly accessible and that they provide for disabled people.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Regarding tribunals, if, sadly, there is to be no legal aid, is it not important that some support and help is given to disabled people to enable them to communicate in those circumstances? Is not that particularly important for people with sight and hearing impairments?

Sir John Hannam: I agree, and I was heartened by the Minister's comment that, following the legislation, a series of regulations and a review of the codes of practice will be put into effect which will outline the intent behind the legislation.
Another important area is the fire and safety precautions. Disabled people are often excluded from buildings because of fire and safety precautions. There needs to be a full-scale review of health and safety legislation and codes of practice so that provision for disabled people is taken into account.
The fact that businesses would have to take reasonable steps to remove physical barriers and to provide auxiliary aids is good news, and it was welcomed by the Access Committee for England in its representations to us before the debate. The lack of a right of access to transport and vehicles and the exclusion of further higher education provision from the welcome new right of access to goods and services must be looked at again, especially when we debate clause 12.
The Minister has performed a Herculean task in translating the consultations with more than 1,000 different organisations into positive proposals and the White Paper promise which declares that the Government aim to set in hand a programme to review the effectiveness of legislation in meeting the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities. That could offer a splendid opportunity for a code of practice which would cover not just goods and services, but

colleges of further education and institutes of higher education. Will my hon. Friend the Minister carry out a review such as is implied in the White Paper in time to put recommended amendments into the current legislation? That would be extremely helpful.
While on the subject of education, I agree that the disabled students allowance provides an effective package of support for students who are undertaking higher education courses for which a grant is available. Is not it time, however, to resolve the problem facing part-time students who are not eligible? Many disabled students have to be part-time students because of their disability, yet their equipment, personal support and study costs are basically pro rata the same as full-time students. Testing for the allowance results in the parents of disabled students being penalised to the extent of being required to contribute up to £5,800 before any allowance is payable, as compared with £2,065 for parents of non-disabled students.
Disabled people who take a second degree course and who took their first degree course prior to becoming disabled often find that, when taking the second course or retraining, they are not eligible for the disabled students allowance. I have raised those anomalies in the hope that the review that is promised in the White Paper will look into them, because the Government could remove a lot of discrimination which affects disabled students.
I come now to the employment proposals. An obvious area of concern and trepidation lies in the abolition of the quota which, for all its weaknesses, provides a measurement with which to work. I personally would rather have a strengthening of the quota alongside the new rights in the Bill, at least until we can be sure that the rights are working.
Incidentally, I was pleased to receive a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister today which followed on from a point that has been raised about the disablement register. My hon. Friend reassured those concerned that the register will be discontinued, and that the arrangements which are there for those on the register to be accepted for disability recognition purposes for the legislation are purely transitional.
In any case, I would like an effective monitoring system of the employment of disabled people to be put in place, as well as a rethink—others have called for that—on the exclusion figure for firms employing fewer than 20 people. I was again reassured to hear my hon. Friend state that the figure can be changed by regulation as we see how it is working. I do not see the logic of that figure. It is larger than in other countries with similar legislation, and it will certainly exclude about 90 per cent. of firms in Devon, where we have small businesses predominately.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that there does need to be a figure, whether it is 20, 80 or eight? There is no point in forcing companies to introduce facilities for the disabled if, in doing so, they are driven out of business. [Interruption.]

Sir John Hannam: That matter was fully considered last year. It was a matter of getting the right figure. [Interruption] I think that that was all that my hon. Friend was arguing about.
I agree that the object of the legislation and the discussions which will take place is to try to arrive at a satisfactory figure. The Americans went through the same


process and found that, by setting their own terms, they were able to achieve a massive removal of obstacles to employment without great cost. We must look now at how the measure will work. If it is merely a question of protecting small businesses from unreasonable expense and bureaucracy, surely the Bill contains a safeguard. It uses the term "reasonable adjustment", which would protect businesses from excessive demands on their resources. A protection is built into the Bill and we should consider the figure carefully as the Bill progresses.
As I understand the Bill, small employers will be required to employ a disabled person only if he or she is the best candidate. If any alteration to the workplace can be readily achieved, they will also be able to seek support from the access to work scheme, which I commend. A small firm can refuse to consider a disabled candidate, even if employing that person would not cause the firm to incur costs.
We could be sanctioning overt discrimination and excluding disabled people from any commercial or industrial enterprise that is beginning to get under way—something that the hon. Member for Monklands, West mentioned. Most new jobs are created when new firms are in their early stages. Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Employers Forum on Disability question the 20-employee threshold, as do all organisations for the disabled. I hope that we can reconsider the issue, especially as two fifths of all disabled people work in small firms.
My final suggestion is on enforcement systems. My hon. Friend the Minister dealt at some length with his reasons for the national disability council and the local tribunal system. I understand the pressures on him to avoid setting up an expensive and bureaucratic enforcement system. As the Bill proceeds, however, I hope that he will reconsider the matter. Given the restrictions on legal aid for industrial tribunals and the need for more than just an advisory organisation, we may conclude that something stronger will be necessary to underpin the pillars of this legislation.
In his down-to-earth manner, my hon. Friend the Minister has achieved tremendous progress by drawing agreement from the various Departments and consulting widely with more than 1,000 disability and other interests. I congratulate him, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who has been backing his efforts to the hilt. Parliament now faces a push-me-pull-you, Dr. Dolittle situation, with two proposed disability anti-discrimination measures. No one can have fought harder than I for the private Member's Bill last year, but now the Government have tabled a Bill that, as the CBI states,
marks the start of a new era for the rights of disabled people"—
something that we can put on the statute book. I will support the Second Reading of this long-fought-for legislation and I hope that the House will also give it its full support.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) talk about the Government's opposing factions on this issue. I am sure that he will recall the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), to whom he has paid tribute today, telling him and me, over and over again, that this is a seamless Government. That

explains why my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), in an excellent speech, said today that the former Minister was very clearly acting for the Government as a whole when he fell under very strong criticism in this House in the last Session.
For reasons that will be well understood in all parts of the House, I want briefly now to put this debate into historical perspective. It was as long ago as 1979, as the first Minister for Disabled People, that I appointed a committee of inquiry into unfair discrimination against disabled people—chaired by Sir Peter Large—which began the national debate of which today's proceedings are the latest phase.
The committee reported in 1982 to Sir Hugh Rossi, one of my early successors as Minister, in favour of making it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of disability. Since the committee reported, every attempt to give effect to its recommendations, from both sides of the House, has been met by the Government with prevarication, dissimulation and systematic obstruction. They have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to a grudging acceptance that legislation is today an imperative necessity. Almost by common consent, it is also scandalously long overdue.
The Government's treatment of the issue ever since the committee of inquiry report has been disgraceful. That is not only my view but that of many Conservative Members as well. In 30 years here, I have witnessed only four personal statements of unreserved apology by Members for misleading the House. The first was from a Member of Parliament who, in the mid-1970s, misled the House over his role in the Poulson scandal. All of the remaining three, including one from the then Minister himself, were for misleading the House in debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, starting with the personal statement that Robert Hayward, then the Member for Kingswood, had to make for seriously misleading the House very soon after I drafted and first promoted the Bill in 1991.
As the House knows, that Bill was ably sponsored by my hon. Friend, the new Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), when he subsequently won a high place in the private Members' Bill ballot in 1993; and it is being sponsored again now, with both considerable skill and total commitment, by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
The Government quite dishonestly gave the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill a price tag of £17 billion-—a totally bogus, indeed preposterous figure. By misrepresenting the Bill as requiring all existing buildings to be made fully accessible, they added £6 billion to the cost of compliance and by saying, just as perversely, that it required full access to public transport within five years, they added another £5 billion. Many other examples are available of their blatant disregard for easily ascertainable facts in order to inflate the cost of the Bill. Yet they breathed not a word about the estimate by Touche Ross of a loss to Britain's travel industry, due solely to lack of access and facilities for disabled people, of many billions of pounds. Nor did they say a word about all the other benefits of ending the exclusion of disabled people from so much of the economic and social life of this country.
In his statement on 24 November last, and again today, the Minister heaped praise on the Government for proposing what he called an "historic advance" for disabled people. As a more seasoned practitioner, I most strongly counsel him against any further resort to that


grandiose claim. In truth, the Government have blocked, for over 13 years now, what would have been a really historic advance, long craved by the disabled people of this country. They want not this Bill but what the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill offers: not second-class rights for second-class citizens but full civil rights and equal citizenship. As the Minister must know, they and their organisations see this Bill's proposals as a travesty of those in the Bill that I drafted, in close consultation with them, more than four years ago.
The extent of the travesty is spelt out with striking clarity in a detailed comparison of the two Bills in the excellent submission from Scope—formerly the Spastics Society—for today's debate. Does the Minister question that comparison? If he has not yet seen it, I commend him to read it with all urgency. Let him also ponder Scope's admirably concise description of his proposals, in saying:
We are looking here at a Bill of ifs, buts and maybes".
Is it really thought worthy of Britain's disabled people to offer them a Bill so described by so universally well regarded and authoritative a voice from the disability movement?
The Minister says that he recognises that disabled people want an end not only .to discrimination but to condescension and patronising attitudes towards them. But is it not both condescending and patronising for any of us here to decide what they should want and what they deserve? How can we possibly tell them, without being at once condescending and patronising, that they deserve less than what non-disabled people already enjoy as of right? My answer to that question, ever since the 1970s, has been that unfair discrimination against disabled people is morally wrong and that what is morally wrong ought not to be legally permissible in this country. In fact, it was my answer to that question which led me to appoint the committee of inquiry into discrimination against disabled people 16 years ago.
I spoke about the Government's grossly distorted estimate of the cost of complying with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. To take the most charitable view of their conduct, their distortion suggests that they are not very good at compliance cost assessments. That calls seriously into question their assessment of the cost of this inadequate Bill. But what no one here or anywhere else can question is the fact that the Government have already arranged to recoup from disabled people much more than the Minister's costing of the Disability Discrimination Bill. As proof, I need only cite the effect on disabled people of the Government's drastic cuts in invalidity benefit.
As the House knows, that benefit will be replaced on 13 April by a new incapacity benefit, which pays less, is taxable and more difficult to claim. The Government now spend £8 billion on invalidity benefit, which is to be cut by no less than £2 billion even though, in the same period, every other major item in the social security budget, except unemployment benefit, is set to increase. Many disabled people on invalidity benefit now face a cut in income from about £77 to £46 a week. That puts into context the Government's so-called "extra spending" on this Bill.
I turn now to some of the specific points about the Bill of particular concern to disabled people and those who work with and for them. They complain bitterly, as the

Minister must know, of his substitution of the National Disability Council—or "talking shop", as they see it—for the Disability Rights Commission for which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill provides.
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation states:
The Government's Bill cannot avoid comparison with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, or with equivalent laws addressing race and sex discrimination. Measured against these standards it falls short on three vital counts: it is neither comprehensive, effective, nor enforceable".
With other major disability organisations, it condemns the fact that small employers—who employ an estimated one in three of this country's work force—will not be covered by the Bill and will remain, as we have heard this afternoon, free to discriminate. How can the Minister justify that when the CBI, the leading organisation representing British industry, opposes the exclusion? Let me remind him again of the report of the Employers Forum on Disability, which states:
It cannot be right for a disabled person to be discriminated against just because an enterprise has fewer than 20 employees".
There is widespread condemnation also of the Bill's failure to cover education and the means of transport. Their exclusion is not only condemned by disabled people but ridiculed by employers who insist that discrimination, not least in the employment field, cannot be solved in isolation. As one big employer with more experience of running a major enterprise than any Minister in the present Government put it to me:
To end discrimination in the labour market, you mustn't only protect disabled people there but also achieve full equality of access for them to transport and training, among many other facilities and services".
In that employer's view, "piecemeal change" in this policy area is an attempt to divide the indivisible and a total waste of both parliamentary time and taxpayers' money.
I also want to quote here the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the Government's failure to produce an enforceable Bill. It said:
Too much legislation has fallen into disrepute through not being enforced effectively, if at all. Parts of the 1944 Disabled Persons Act and the 1986 Disabled Persons Act are notable examples".
The RNIB explains clearly why it wants no more time-wasting in protecting disabled people from unfair and unmerited discrimination, which it identifies as a major factor
in determining that only 17 per cent. of blind people and only 31 per cent. of partially sighted people of working age are actually in work".
Those figures shout of unfair discrimination against blind people.
Yet the most withering of all the criticisms I have seen of the Bill is that it will actually increase discrimination against disabled people. The abolition of the 3 per cent. quota, with no more adequate substitute, is widely cited as justifying that charge, as is the Government's
complete failure to understand how disability discrimination operates".
They are the words of "Rights Now"—among whose affiliates is the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People—which also attacks the Bill's
pointlessly complicated and over-restrictive definition of discrimination".


Its submission to the House goes on:
The Bill contains a host of defences and potential justifications for discriminatory treatment which are not present in the legislation on sex and race. The accumulated effect of these loopholes will render it almost impossible for a disabled person to challenge discrimination.
"Rights Now" wants the enactment of the comprehensively all-party Bill which the Government have been obstructing since I first promoted it in 1991—nothing more and nothing less. Britain's 6.5 million disabled people have already been made to wait far too long for its enactment and the bounden duty of this House today is to make 1995 the year of full civil rights for them. Without those rights, they are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made even harder to bear by gratuitous social handicaps for which there is no justification whatsoever. "Rights Now" wants the reasoned amendment to the Government's Bill to be approved this evening and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to succeed on 10 February.
As I have argued, disabled people want not second-class rights for second-class citizens but the same rights as everyone else and equal citizenship. On both sides of the House, let us now make that happen.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me a short time to speak this evening. I promise that I shall not take long, because the subject is important to so many hon. Members.
First, I declare three interests. I have been invited and have taken on the chairmanship of the International Year of Tolerance. Our committee has decided that our key theme will be tolerance of difference, especially tolerance of disability. It seems to us that the least tolerated group in society these days is people whose motor functions or other impairments cause them significant long-term difficulties. I hope that we may be allowed to debate that matter later in the year to see how we have progressed.
I also declare an interest in that I chair an organisation called ADAPT, which was begun by the Carnegie trust. It stands for Access for Disabled people to Arts Premises Today. In our three or four years of existence, we have mobilised and enabled the expenditure of £3 million worth of funding, virtually all private, with some support from the Department of Heritage. That work has given me great insight.
I also chair a new organisation, Blind in Business, which was formed by some young men who suffer from significant sight impairment and who found it tough to enter the world of work. The House will therefore appreciate that my real interests in the Bill relate to access, particularly access for people with physical difficulties, the world of work and tolerance.
I should also like to put on record the fact that I introduced the Access to Employees' Records Bill—which did not reach the statute book—because I believe that it is lack of information which causes personnel officers to make errors concerning people at work.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I was interested that the hon. Lady mentioned access, because one of my constituents was denied access to the Tate gallery because she is a wheelchair user and there were already six people using wheelchairs in the gallery.

My constituent was left feeling extremely humiliated. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not the Government's Bill but that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) which will most succeed in meeting my constituent's needs and the needs of many other people with disabilities?

Miss Nicholson: I believe that ADAPT will be most successful in meeting that lady's needs as fast as possible, with the support of the Department of National Heritage. For example, one of ADAPT's first targets was the Royal Albert hall, which, when we first started work with the chief executive, provided just six places for disabled people out of 6,000 seats. After considerable persuasion, the management capitulated magnificently and undertook to redesign the hall. It recently won one of our awards both for that superb adaptation and for its future plans.
I cannot resist telling colleagues that, for the past three years, the awards given by ADAPT have been funded by British Gas. The withdrawal of that modest sum of money coincided exactly with the hyper pay rise given to its chairman and chief executive. I wrote a letter to British Gas on that very note and perhaps we will once again receive that modest sum for more ADAPT awards.
I am delighted to learn of the constituent of the hon. Member for Homsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and I shall get hold of the Tate gallery immediately and do something about it.
Private initiative, as ADAPT has proved, has been enormously successful. Half the board of ADAPT is made up of people with physical disabilities and the other half by people who make decisions that affect those who go to the theatre, the cinema, art galleries and public libraries. When we started work we were told that we were attempting an impossible task and that, if it were possible, it should be done by the Government anyway. We were told that we should not even start to try.
Several critical articles appeared in the press, and we were subject to severe recriminations from others involved in work with disabled people. We were told that the work could not be done; that the Government should have done the work and, if we commenced, that the Government should provide the total funding.
Our reply was, "That's life. We are going to start anyway." The fact that ADAPT has found £3 million at a time when not much free money is floating around is no, mean achievement. That mixture of maximum private effort and minimum Government involvement means that tasks involving cultural change are completed faster. That is at the heart of today's Bill.
In terms of the world of work, I should like to pay a warm tribute to the work of the late Ron Leighton, who, was a Member of the House. I was extremely fortunate to, be a member of the Select Committee on Employment when he agreed to consider the question of employment for disabled people. He was a wonderful Chairman of that Committee, because when I put that idea to him he took it up and made it go forward with a will. We produced a report on the subject five years ago and I am glad to note that many of our recommendations form part of the Disability Discrimination Bill. For that reason I pay a warm tribute to Ron Leighton.
I also pay a strong tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), the former Minister for Disabled People. I believe that his work provides an historical record of the way in which our society


approaches more positively the problems of disabled people. He carried out remarkable work for many years. I also commend particularly Geoffrey Lord, who was the secretary of the Carnegie Trust for many years, and who is now the honorary director of ADAPT. He initiated the work on access for disabled people to arts premises and public libraries.
It is a great pity that this vital Bill is being treated in such a traditionally adversarial manner. It, above all legislation, would benefit from a harmonious approach. It will impact upon the lives of millions of people who are citizens of the United Kingdom today and many, many millions more who have yet to be born. When it comes to disability, co-operation is infinitely more fruitful than adversarialism.
I believe that the Bill and other associated legislation, which has been introduced by other hon. Members on both sides of the House and for which I have a high regard, affects a much vaster section of the population than has been recognised in the debate so far.
The phrase "the disabled should live with dignity and independence" has become a common one. It is an excellent phrase, because we all wish to live with dignity and some of us prefer independence. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that that phrase should now be extended, because I believe that disabled people, in common with everyone else, want freedom, in particular freedom of choice and freedom of movement.
In the past, it was physically impossible for those with disability to achieve such freedom, but new scientific and engineering advances now make infinitely greater freedoms—far greater than anything previously possible in the history of mankind—possible for people with physical impairment. Perhaps the Government's greatest gift to those with physical disabilities is to offer those freedoms through judicious expenditure and legislation, by the carrot and stick approach and by energising private citizens and companies to achieve that goal.
Real freedom rests not just on economic freedom, but on a cultural disregard for difference. I hate the word "disabled" because it immediately sets up cultural barriers which we then have to work so hard to dismantle and pull down. But I do not for a moment take cultural disregard to mean acceptance of the plea of ignorance.
I was struck by a strong and upsetting example of such ignorance at a recent Ministry—I will not say which one—which launched a scheme for disabled. It took place in a grade 1 listed building. As chairman of ADAPT, I am familiar with such buildings, because we are always told that they are impossible to adapt properly. I think that Pugin would have been proud of us; it is astonishing what one can do if one has the will and even a modest sum of money. Determination is the key.
When I got to the first floor of that grade 1 starred listed building where the Ministry was hosting the so-called "excellent" initiative for disabled people, I was concerned to discover, as I had anticipated, that there was no lift, while half a dozen people in non-electric wheelchairs were at the bottom of the stairs. I sought out the senior civil servant and asked him what could be done. I pointed out that the initiative was supposed to be for the disabled people and drew attention to the poor people at the bottom of the stairs.
He was a good person and replied, I believe through ignorance, that there were at least three methods of getting the people in the wheelchairs up the stairs. When I asked him what they were, he said that they could be carried up the stairs, to which I replied, "Oh. Thank you very much". Secondly, he said that it might be possible for those disabled people to walk up the stairs, to which I replied, "Really?" I am afraid that I then left the Ministry. That was an example not of cultural disregard but of ignorance. That is a blight on all our social attitudes to people who are different, which we must examine carefully and rigorously.
I mean by "cultural disregard" acceptance of difference in the tolerance of normality in our society. We should strive for that, if only because the effects of difficulty of personal movement, for example, are widespread in all sections of our society. In ADAPT, we find that it is just as tough for young mums to get into the theatre with pushchairs and babies as it is for elderly people with zimmer frames and the wheelchaired able-bodied.
I did some research on sight and hearing in the House of Commons Library recently, and the Library staff gave me figures showing that about 26 million people in Britain wear spectacles. One could say that, 100 years ago, before all those excellent spectacles were available, all those 26 million people would have been, in today's terminology, "disabled" because they would not have been able to see well enough.
The Library staff investigated hearing for me—a vastly under-researched subject. They extrapolated some figures and gave me the normal cautions about extrapolation of statistics, but, on best guesstimates from the House of Commons Library, 23 million people have a hearing loss significant enough to warrant a hearing aid.
I feel that the fine, upstanding, generally Anglo-Saxon male in the advertisements is not the norm in terms of physical ability for any of us, except for perhaps a short period in the lives of exceptionally healthy men, and that most people have some type of problem. Nowadays, many problems may be solved by science—with glasses, hearing aids, or electric wheelchairs—but let us not lose sight of the fact that people with physical difficulties are far more widespread throughout society than we may imagine.
Therefore, I suggest that we should not always listen only to membership organisations that represent people with a specific disability. Some time ago, one of the organisations for the blind told me that not more than about one blind person in 10 belonged to any of the registered blind societies that we know of. I do not know if that figure was correct, but I believe that, here in Parliament, naturally, we hear the views from membership organisations to the exclusion of the great number of people—the greater number of people, I think—who do not belong to those organisations. The difficulty of definition to the Minister, therefore, is vast. How should we proceed, when we are speaking about such an enormous tranche of our population?
I vastly admire the munificent provisions for the disabled which the Government have made in health and social security, which are so numerous that I shall not name them. However, I believe that, outside that social and health provision, people seek as a priority access to the places that people with normal motor functions have


access to easily, including Parliament. One of the most difficult places in which to hold a meeting of people with wheelchairs is this very building.
Those people seek access facilities so that they can be normal like everyone else, and they seek fairness at work, especially in the gateway to obtaining work, which is the job application scrutiny procedure. That is why I am very happy indeed with so much of the focus of the present piece of legislation on accessibility and on work.
In the spirit of harmony, I shall mention three thoughts that the Minister will perhaps do me the kindness of taking away and considering.
First, although the advisory body that the Minister proposes will be very helpful, surely we should work towards a more difficult goal—the establishment of an organisation for equal opportunity for all our citizens. If a woman came to me who was disabled and non-white, where would I send her—to three different organisations? That is an extraordinary thought. It is ludicrous. Surely we should have one organisation offering equal opportunity for all our citizens. I would back that with advisory outreaches for people with special needs, such as people with disabilities.
I ask the Minister to consider that difficult topic. I appreciate its sensitivities because the two organisations that already exist would believe that they were being downgraded. However, the disabled are far larger in numbers than any of us can necessarily recognise in the context of any legislation, and fairness for all our citizens should surely be our goal.
I would therefore reject the Minister's proposals if he was suggesting the creation of another organisation similar to the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, because I do not want that structure to become entrenched. I would prefer one organisation for any problem of that type.
Secondly, on the very difficult question of legislation affecting companies, I am unhappy that there is a numerical limit on fair treatment. I believe that we are discussing imposing a social need on companies, and that, if we wish to progress down that path, a social fund to right company discrimination should be created. That means that we need a long-term plan, to be implemented as the country can afford it. Would the Minister care to consider a longer-term plan for disabled matters at work, irrespective of numbers employed in a company, while accepting that it cannot be carried out immediately?
Thirdly, the Minister's task is the more difficult because the outreach of his work affects all Departments. I ask him to consider tasking the Government to take on a new voluntary commitment—it need not be statutory, but I am sure that it would be carried out in our system of benign legislation—that all Bills that this place passes should be put through the mesh of his Department's basic needs for people with disabilities before final assent.
I shall give a simple example of what I mean. In ADAPT, we have felt strongly that one of the most important matters affecting disabled people and access to the arts is the way in which organisations that are appointed to distribute the profits from the national lottery may carry out their work. Although the lottery is outside the terms of the Bill, we believe that, taken together, the Bill and the national lottery represent the biggest single opportunity to advance the cause of disabled people's rights that we have ever had in the United Kingdom.
As those two functions are so inter-related, we want the people who are responsible for making decisions about grant applications for the arts, heritage and general charities to ensure that moneys will be given only when it can be demonstrated that disabled people will share in the improved facilities. That is the type of suggestion that the Minister could take up if he had a commitment, in general terms, from the Government that all legislation should be put through the mesh of his Department to consider how it could affect disabled people for the better. My suggestion would not cost the state a penny more, and what a difference it would make, not only in actuality but in cultural attitude.
It would always be difficult for any Minister for Disabled People to bring forward a Bill that would satisfy everyone, but I beg the House to approach the Bill in the spirit of harmony and tolerance. The Minister and his predecessor have done a fine job. I want the legislation to succeed; it is the best first building block for the future that the Minister could have brought to this place.

Ms Liz Lynne: I wish I could say that it gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate, but I am afraid that it does not. I find myself in the awkward position of not wanting to bury the Bill but not wanting to praise it. It is typically badly drafted, and can be open to a great deal of secondary legislation. Moreover, it is timid, and it certainly does not go far enough. However, I suppose that it is something, and something is better than nothing.
At least the Bill is a Government Bill. At times last year, other hon. Members and I gave up the idea of the Government proposing legislation, especially after the disgraceful tactics that were used by some hon. Members to get rid of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Now the Government appear to accept the need for civil rights legislation to be enshrined in law to a certain extent—but only to a certain extent. They seem to accept that legal protection against discrimination is needed, but again, only to a certain extent.
Such legal protection would allow disabled people to take their rightful place in society. It seems amazing that, in this day and age, we should be talking about anyone's rightful place in society, but that issue lies at the heart of today's debate, just as it was at the heart of last year' s debate and of other legislation on civil rights for disabled people that was brought before the House.
Disabled people want to be given equal treatment to other members of society, not different treatment. That is not much to ask and it is the least that they can expect. The fact that the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to present even this meagre Bill might lead one to assume that disabled people were asking for something outlandish, not basic human rights.
If one gives the Bill even a cursory glance, one sees that the Government are still not totally committed. That is why I shall support the reasoned amendment. Over the past few days, I have been worried and in two minds as to whether to support the reasoned amendment. I thought that it might be seen as gesture politics and might split the consensus that built up last year during the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I believe that it may do that, and I am sorry. Having read the reasoned amendment, I can see nothing in it to dispute. I wish that the Government had taken it on board and gone further,


but they have not. The reasoned amendment will be a shot across the Government's bows and, for that reason, I shall support it.
I contacted a number of disabled people's organisations and a number of disabled people before I took my decision at the weekend. Every one of them wanted me to support the reasoned amendment—that was the bottom line. When I heard disabled people and disabled people's organisations asking me to support the amendment, who was I to say that I could not? After all, the Bill is for disabled people, who have a right to a voice in the debate. They do not have a voice here today, but we can express their opinion.
I shall now discuss the Bill in detail. I believe that its definition of disabled people will leave out various individuals, such as those suffering from the HIV virus. It could possibly exclude some multiple sclerosis sufferers and those suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis or epilepsy. I do not know why the Government did not take on board the definition in the American legislation for disabled people which speaks of people who are discriminated against by reason of bodily or mental condition. That would be far more satisfactory and I do not know why the Government resisted it. I know that the Minister said that he had not made up his mind on that, and I sincerely hope that he will listen to the arguments and take action to close the loopholes in the definition.
Even if the Government had got the definition right, which would have taken us forward, as other hon. Members have said, there remains a problem relating to employment. Firms employing fewer than 20 people will not be covered by the Bill, despite the fact that the Bill states that reasonable adjustment will have to be made. Even the Confederation of British Industry has stated that it cannot see why the Bill contained that qualification. If the CBI, which has always supported the Government, believes that, I do not know why the Government have not taken that approach.
Many small firms in my constituency and across the country employ many people—not as many as large companies, but still a large number. Such firms are often more accessible to disabled people because they are situated in their locality. The 20-employee rule will lead to discrimination on a massive scale.
The other day, the Prime Minister seemed to think that the issue of transport was included in the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and the Secretary of State are well aware that that subject is not included in the legislation because the Minister himself has said that he will introduce appropriate provisions. What sort of measures will he introduce, and when will he introduce them? The Bill refers to accessibility to bus and railway stations, but not to vehicles. It seems incredible that disabled people will arrive at railway stations and bus terminals and be unable to get on the buses or trains.
Last year, I conducted a survey of new train operators. We rang all of them and asked what facilities they had available for wheelchairs and electric buggies. Only one of the new train operators could take electric buggies. The rest had limited spaces for wheelchairs and most of them stated that two wheelchairs could not travel in the same carriage. The majority of the operators could take only one wheelchair per train. My survey related to newer

stock—with reduced spaces—not older stock. It is therefore clear that something must be done about that problem.
Another problem raised was that of unstaffed stations. A disabled person may arrive at a station, which is fine, but if there are no staff on hand, it becomes extremely difficult for that person. It will become even more difficult if the privatisation process goes ahead, especially with through ticketing. If a disabled person turns up at a station and wants a through ticket, he will be told that he cannot get one and will have to go to a shop or other outlet to purchase a through ticket. That problem must be given careful consideration—the Bill's failure to tackle it is a grave omission.
Another grave omission from the Bill is that of education. In a written reply, the Secretary of State for Education said that new schools would have to be accessible from September onwards. He did not know the date from which other schools would have to be accessible—it is more likely to be 100 years than 10 years. That is why I should have liked the Bill to contain the phrase "within a practicable period". I am not saying that there should be a defined time scale, but if the Government had stipulated that access should be given within a practical period, we would know that they were bearing the subject in mind.
One of the Bill's worst aspects involves enforcement. I know that the Minister has explained why he wants to set up the national disability council—that is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Why should ethnic minorities and women be represented by proper commissions with teeth, while disabled people are not? I do not think that the Minister has given a proper explanation to the House and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so later. Disabled people will be at the mercy of the legal system and will not be entitled to legal aid. If disabled people are discriminated against, they will be unable to fight their case successfully—a commission could have taken their case up for them.
The Bill contains numerous deficiencies, but I acknowledge that it is a welcome step in the right direction. However, the Government must not award themselves laurels and then be allowed to rest on them. Disabled people should congratulate themselves on having pushed the Government so far. The Minister said that it was a feeble Bill because he wanted to take people with him. He has said that in the past, but it is an insult to the British people, who do not believe that it should be a feeble Bill and cannot see why disabled people should be discriminated against. The Minister may laugh, but at a meeting of the all-party disablement group he said that it was a feeble Bill because he wanted to take people with him.
The Minister also said that the Bill constituted an historic advance. It is not an historic advance, but a small advance. An historic advance would be made if legislation on civil rights for disabled persons were introduced. The Bill wastes the potential of disabled people. It should involve disabled people's basic human rights. If the Government could accept that, there would be no further arguments. That is why I shall vote for the reasoned amendment.
We need proper legislation on civil rights for disabled people, who deserve no less. Disabled people want to be treated as equal citizens, not second-class citizens.

Mr. David Congdon: Over the past year or so, we have had a number of debates on this important issue, during which there have been, rightly, a number of impassioned pleas for disability legislation. I make no apology for supporting such legislation in principle, but I make it absolutely clear at the outset that I give the Government's Bill my unreserved blessing. I believe that it is a big step forward and I shall expand on the reasons later in my speech.
It is a great pity that the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment which declines to give the Government's Bill a Second Reading. If we were persuaded by the Opposition parties' arguments to vote for the amendment and against the Bill's Second Reading, the Bill would fall and we would be back to square one, facing the perils of private Members' Bills and the difficulties that we encountered last Session.
In view of the genuine attempt to build a broad coalition across the Chamber in support of the legislation proposed by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I was disappointed by the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke): it was churlish and did nothing to persuade me to vote with the Opposition parties.
I agree—as I hope other hon. Members do—with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who said that discrimination is morally wrong. Of course it is; that is why we are having this debate and why we had earlier debates. All hon. Members want to make progress in this area and put a significant measure on the statute book.
I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last Session. I wished to serve on that Committee because I supported—and still support—the underlying principles of that legislation. However, having read widely on the subject, I recognised that there were concerns as to whether that legislation was affordable and workable. I hoped that the Government would move amendments in Committee to make that Bill acceptable and to put it on the statute book last Session.
I was very disappointed—I shall resist the temptation to say more than that—that the Bill did not make progress on Report. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) was put in a very difficult position. He has always been committed to the principles of such legislation and I pay a warm tribute to his work over the years in looking after the needs of the disabled.
It is fair to say that, until a few months ago, few of us believed that the Government would introduce their own Bill. Before the summer recess, we were given the impression that, although the Government were engaged in consultation, there were likely to be separate private Members' Bills dealing with different aspects of this important subject. I was very pleased when the Queen's Speech made it clear that the Government intended to introduce legislation on this subject.
Unlike a private Member's Bill, Government legislation stands a real chance of making it to the statute book. That is a key reason for supporting the Government's Bill tonight. We can all engage in gesture politics and say, "We will not accept this; we will go for broke and the civil rights legislation." Hon. Members can

make a lot of headlines and receive a lot of credit from voluntary and lobby groups by doing that, but at the end of the day, there is no legislation on the statute book. I would rather put legislation in place and, if it does not work, I will knock loudly on the door and press my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to strengthen it.
I pay tribute tonight to my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who spoke on behalf of the Government. I was impressed by his determination to make progress on this issue after the summer recess and by his presentation to the all-party disablement group. I thank him for trying to put this important Bill on the statute book.
I wish to compare the Government's legislation with the private Member's Bill from last Session. Many people in disability lobby groups are disappointed that the Government have decided not to introduce a full-blown civil rights Bill. Those groups are also concerned about the establishment of a national disability council rather than a commission. I can understand their concern, but I believe that we should give the national disability council the benefit of the doubt.
I do not want to get into a fierce debate about it tonight, but I do not believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have been sure-fire successes. In the early days, they created much resentment—the last thing we want to do is to create resentment in disability matters.
I was impressed by the Minister's arguments in his speech to the all-party disablement group when he talked about using the legislation to change attitudes. I stress that it is a sign of failure when one has to resort to the courts to resolve difficulties. I hope that the Bill will lead to a change in attitude and performance by employers and others.
We have heard a lot about employment rights this evening. I have no doubt that too many employers engage in discriminatory practices—they might not even recognise that they are discriminatory and come up with all sorts of excuses for not employing someone. Therefore, I welcome the right to non-discrimination in employment proposed in the Bill.
I share some of the reservations that have been expressed about the Bill's exemption of small employers. However, the Bill provides powers to change the figure through regulations. I hope that the figure in the Bill will be lowered if it is demonstrated that smaller employers are discriminating against disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) reminded us that 40 per cent. of disabled people are employed by small companies—an important point to bear in mind.
I turn to access to goods' and services by disabled people. I must admit that I thought that the changes to the building regulations which were introduced a few years ago would lead to greater change. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill provides rights of access for disabled people. It is difficult for them to gain access to too many shops, restaurants and public buildings.
Of course it is important to ensure that the costs of adapting buildings for disabled access are within reasonable bounds, and the Bill goes a long way towards keeping those costs at manageable levels. I am very pleased that the compliance cost assessment was published before today's debate—I shall not comment on the previous compliance cost assessment for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Kingswood.
This legislation attempts to put sensible bands on those costs, and I was disappointed by the somewhat hostile reaction to that provision in a recent leader in The Daily Telegraph. Based on 750,000 businesses using cost limits of £500 or £1,500 per business, the compliance cost assessment showed a likely maximum cost of between £375 million and £1,125 million. The figures could be far less than that because buildings can be adapted fairly easily.
The measure which makes it illegal to refuse to serve disabled people is particularly important. However, I flag one concern on which the Minister could perhaps comment in his winding-up speech—clause 14(3), which relates to circumstances in which less favourable treatment of disabled people is justified.
One of the conditions under which discrimination can be justified is if there is a danger to health or safety. I am no lawyer—that could be an advantage or a disadvantage in today's debate—but I am worried about the classic situation which I have raised in previous debates when someone wants access to a cinema where there is room but the manager says, "I am allowed only one or two disabled people in wheelchairs because it might lead to difficulties in the event of a fire." We need to address that, too often it could be used as an excuse to deny disabled people access, and we must avoid that.
In the White Paper, the Government rightly make great play of the Education Act 1993 with the extra powers which it gives parents and, we hope, results in better access to schools for pupils with disabilities. I had assumed that the earlier Education Act 1981, which was the hallmark Act in terms of education for children with special needs, would have done just that and that there would not be many schools today from which young people were excluded because of a particular disability. I certainly urge the Government to look at that aspect very closely. If the biennial review which is included in the Bill for examining schools and their degree of access shows access that is not being achieved, they must introduce further measures.
It cannot be right to deny youngsters the opportunity to go to a suitable school simply because no one will put in a ramp or a lift. Lifts are slightly more difficult than other pieces of equipment to install, but some schools—particularly primary schools—do not need them. An imaginative approach and the will to open up schools to youngsters with disabilities are needed. Too often, physical access is used as an excuse, and a disabled youngster ends up going to a special school. I commend to the Government the earlier report produced by the Spastics Society in conjunction with Coopers and Lybrand which suggested that 75 per cent. of schools could be adapted at a relatively small cost. I urge Ministers to think again on that matter.
I very much welcome the Bill. As I said earlier, a few months ago I did not believe that the Government would introduce such a Bill and I welcome their determination to get it on the statute book. I hope that it will be scrutinised carefully in Committee to make sure that any alleged loopholes are plugged. It is a major step forward and it is a pity that it was not recognised as such by the hon. Member for Monklands, West.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) referred to his difficulty in voting for the reasoned amendment, despite his many reservations about the Bill. I remind him that he would have no such difficulties if he came back to the Chamber on 10 February in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who is proposing precisely the legislation that it appears from his speech he requires.
I shall confine my remarks to two age groups in which I take a particular interest, as well as a general interest in the disabled—the young and the old. I shall discuss them in reverse order. In a number of respects, the Bill fails to protect them in matters that touch importantly on their rights and their quality of life.
I refer first to the older members of society. I see in the Bill opportunities lost to make inroads into agism, which is another cause of discrimination in society. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) told us that there are 6.5 million disabled people in Britain, 63 per cent. of whom are over 60. In other words, the majority of disabled people are over 60 and they all have the right to live their lives to the full without discrimination. They also have the right to work. One might ask, "Are they still seeking work at that age?" Certainly, any man over 60 is entitled still to be seeking work. If the pension age is to be equalised at 65, many women may also need to work, given the changing patterns of work and concern for their pensions in old age.
There is less concern generally about the disabilities of older people. People tend to express more concern about disability in the young; they simply accept disability in older people as the natural process of aging. Thus, the Bill is open to criticism in that the definition of disability that it offers is too narrow. It refers to long-term impairment that restricts a person's ability to carry out day-to-day activities, but the aged are disabled by their very age, which affects, for example, employers' perceptions of them.
The protection of the Bill should, therefore, extend to those who are perceived to be disabled, although they are not physically or mentally disabled. For example, when an employer makes a judgment that an older person is disabled from carrying out the requirements of a job merely by reason of age, that employer is making presumptions about older people.
The concept of reasonableness referred to in clause 5 is of great concern to those who have an interest in the rights of older people. Reasonableness on the part of an employer when judging whether a person is fit to do a job is too vague and subjective, particularly with reference to older people.
Also with reference to employment, clause 7, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, and which exempts businesses with fewer than 20 employees, works to the detriment of older people. Those are precisely the businesses, often locally based, in which older people commonly seek employment.
The Minister mentioned that 83 per cent. of disabled people are covered by the Bill. I very much doubt whether 83 per cent. of older people are covered by the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe told us that two fifths of all disabled people are known to work in businesses employing 20 people or fewer. One


may deduce that that applies to at least two fifths of disabled older people, and I would guess rather more. Therefore, as a number of hon. Members have said, the exemption in clause 7 should be narrowed, removed altogether, or replaced.
On access in general, I also refer to the exclusions from transport and education, which are clearly in the Bill. Both are extremely important to older people, but I shall concentrate on transport. The Minister's gradualist approach ignores an important consequence of Government public transport policies. Perhaps Conservative Members do not use buses, but if they visit any conurbation such as Merseyside, they will see clapped-out buses dashing around competing for business. Most are inaccessible to the disabled.
As a consequence of privatisation, buses are in use longer and not replaced so frequently. They remain in service, with all their inaccessibility to older disabled people in particular. Incidentally, the British bus production industry has been decimated as a by-product of Government policy. Many older disabled people will be dead before they see the benefits of the Government's gradualist approach to public transport accessibility.
There is a wide variation among local education authorities as to the number of pupils aged five to 15 who are referred to segregated special schools. Figures for January 1992 from Barnardo's show that in Barnsley and Cornwall, one pupil in 200 was referred to a segregated special school, whereas the figure for Lambeth, Hackney and East Sussex was five times higher. That is a prima facie case of discrimination based on residence. Does that matter? Yes. I concede that segregated special education should be available by choice, but disabled children should also have the choice to be educated in mainstream schools.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East referred to the Education Act 1981, which is engraved in my memory because I was an education chairman at the time. That legislation was introduced with the mantra, "within current resources". It never was resourced, and that has been much of the problem with special education provision ever since.
Children who are denied mainstream education are deprived of experiences that would help them to live a fulfilling life and play a full part in society. Research suggests that deprivation affects their self-concept. They are certainly deprived opportunities of socialisation. They must frequently travel long distances to attend special schools, which further prevents them participating properly in their own communities.
That denial also affects society in general—non-disabled people. Many hon. Members present know the story of the individual who looked down pityingly on a disabled person in a wheelchair and said, "Man, you've got problems." The disabled person looked up and said, "No, but I think you have." The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) referred to cultural disregard. Some people have a problem accepting the existence, role, rights and abilities of disabled people. I remind the House of my earlier remarks about perceptions of the older disabled.
In respect of exclusions affecting special education, the Bill works against the spirit of the legislation stated by the Minister, of altering society's perception of disability. He referred to the Education Act 1993, but the provisions that he cited have insufficient bite to justify the Bill's

omissions. It should contain targets and timetables for local education authorities to make incremental improvements to existing education premises and their facilities for the disabled.
There may be difficulties, but faith can move mountains sometimes. Sadly, there were many cases of thalidomide children on Merseyside. The much-maligned Liverpool city council managed to adapt a mainstream comprehensive school on the city's inner ring road, to cater for all those thalidomide children. Impressive achievements can be made with will and determination.
The Bill's major weakness is the proposed national disability council. It will be advisory and will be charged to produce codes of practice, to consult and to provide costings—but it will have no powers. That is unlike the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, which presumably it is supposed to mirror. That is illogical.
In the play by Euripides, Hippolytus gave the ultimate excuse for hypocrisy:
My tongue has sworn, but my heart is unsworn.
I hasten to emphasise that I do not accuse the Minister of duplicity. I accept his sincerity, in stating his commitment to changing social attitudes through the Bill. I commend him for that aspiration, but I shall turn my quotation from Euripides on its head. Although the Minister's heart may thus be sworn, his tongue does not speak with sufficient strength to underpin his sincerity. There is insufficient force and detail in the Bill to do that. For that reason, I shall certainly enter the Lobby to support the reasoned amendment. I look forward also to returning to the Chamber on 10 February to support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I was grateful for the little lesson in the classics from the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), and I am glad of the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill. I have long had an interest in the subject, as honorary president of Mencap in Frome and as honorary vice-president of Action Aid for the Disabled in my former constituency of Newport, West. I follow also the activities of the all-party group, so I was pleased to hear strong support for the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) earlier this afternoon. It served to underline my view that this legislation is a positive step forward for disabled people. Indeed, had it been on offer more than 12 months ago, I believe that it would have been welcomed by the Labour party—although its members might not care to admit that today.
I find it extremely disappointing to note that the Opposition seek to oppose the Bill's Second Reading by means of a reasoned amendment. That amendment would not just deny the Bill a Second Reading, but it would do so on grounds that are good debating points for Committee but rather short of substance when it comes to opposing the entire legislation.
For all the emotion that emerged in the debate on the private Member's Bill last year, there has been steady progress in recent years in advancing the rights of, and opportunities, help and benefits for disabled people. Education has played an important part in that process. There has been great progress in the way in which public services, architectural designs and a range of other


activities are provided for disabled people, in the community and in the workplace. I think that, confronted with the achievements of the past two decades, people 20 years ago would have been dubious about the possibilities of making so much progress.
This Bill carries the process forward. As the Minister said, it should not be seen as an isolated measure; it is part of a package outlined in the recent White Paper. There is much to be said for introducing legislation such as this in a properly staged and managed way. It makes sense to secure progress in a structured manner. After all, it is not just a question of forcing the public and businesses by means of legislation to uphold certain standards of conduct. It is also a question of educating people, so that the proper treatment of disabled people gains ever wider acceptance in the community—that is happening already.
Hence there is a case for concentrating on larger employers with the resources to deal effectively with such legislation. The United States Congress, after considerable thought, decided to exempt companies with 15 or fewer employees. I believe that we were wise to follow a similar path, at least for the time being. We can always return to the issue if the need arises.

Mr. Berry: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the relevant clause would allow the figure to be increased as well? It has been suggested that it might come down from 20, but it might also go up.

Mr. Robinson: There is always the opportunity for the Government to change their mind. The figure might change in Committee: who knows? The important thing is to establish the principle, which is what the Bill rightly does.
A new law can easily be brought into disrepute if it is quickly found to be unenforceable. We must therefore ensure that this legislation is practical, sensible and readily accepted in the workplace.
It is also wise to provide a measure of flexibility if the responsibilities demanded by the Bill are to be properly implemented. When I visit new buildings or projects in my constituency, one of my first questions is always, "What facilities have you got here for disabled people?" I am rarely disappointed; usually a lot of thought goes into ensuring that the facilities in public buildings, voluntary sector buildings and businesses are appropriate to the needs of disabled people. Of course, people will always have different definitions of what should be provided, but in the main progress is positive.
The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about the desire for access expressed by disabled people struck a chord with me. Arriving at a public place or in the workplace and being forced into a stressful entry always entails a degree of humiliation. As one of my constituents said at the well-attended Mencap annual general meeting in Frome last Friday night, disabled people feel demeaned and second rate when they are denied. That applies across the board—to access, to attitudes and to the constant fear of being talked down to or patronised.
A great deal of what happens to disabled people is demeaning but could not possibly be put right by any discrimination legislation. We must not be misled into thinking that passing legislation will provide all the

solutions, and we must not allow it to turn into an excuse for not doing more. There must be a concerted drive, beyond this or any other legislation, to educate people about the disabled, demonstrating to them that disability does not disqualify a person from leading a perfectly normal life. That sort of education goes well beyond legislation. It extends to attitudes at work, in schools and in public offices.
Some time ago I was delighted to visit a project under way at St. Arthur's school in Wincanton in my constituency. The project is known as the Monday club—[Laughter.] I thought that hon. Members might find that strange. I certainly raised my eyebrows when I was told I was to meet the Monday club without knowing exactly what that would entail. In any case, in that project students work with disabled people for one hour a week. The reaction among the teenagers was highly encouraging. When I spoke to them individually, they all admitted that their attitudes to disabled people had been altered by their experience with the project. Such work in schools is immensely valuable in the process of changing attitudes right across the spectrum.
I give a warm welcome to the Bill. I am certain that it will emerge from Committee further improved. That is why I hope, once it has got through its ritual denunciation, that the Labour party will work constructively with the Bill once Opposition Members have had their pound of flesh in the Division Lobby tonight.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: There are 500,000 disabled people in Wales, for whom this legislation is very important indeed. No doubt they, like many hon. Members, would like it to go quite a bit further. If the legislation moved in the direction of the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which we shall have the chance to consider in a couple of weeks' time, it would be relevant not just to disabled people but to countless thousands of others for whom the facilities to be provided are of direct significance.
I am glad to speak in this debate. I should be even more pleased if the Government had adopted the anti-discrimination legislative approach incorporated in a number of Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bills which I have sponsored in recent years. The Bill does not meet the objectives spelt out by the Government in their consultation paper, on page 9 of which we read:
The Government accepts that measures to end discrimination must be comprehensive.
Regrettably, the Bill is not comprehensive, although it is a step in the right direction. Paragraph 1.9 on the same page states:
The Government is introducing wide-ranging anti-discrimination legislation".
But this Bill is fairly narrow. That is not to say that the parts of it which bite are not worth having, but it would have been far better if it had adopted the general approach of the other Bills that have been introduced on the same subject.
We need comprehensive legislation. The principle of non-discrimination should be inviolate. Either we believe in discrimination or we do not. If we do not, we should legislate against it. If we believe that it is applicable in law in some areas, it should be applicable in all areas. Discrimination should not be allowed or tolerated in any circumstances. It is just not good


enough to say, for example, that it will be outlawed for 83 per cent. of employees, but allowed for the remaining 17 per cent.
The position of companies employing fewer than 20 workers is unsatisfactory. As I understand it, the legislation in Australia and New Zealand has no such exclusions. Some hon. Members argued the American case, and one can equally argue the experience there. If a worker in a company employing 20 people has his or her rights with regard to disability safeguarded, what happens if suddenly there is a redundancy in the company and it then employs fewer than 20 people? Does that person lose his or her basic human rights, as recognised in the Bill, by virtue of the fact that there has been a redundancy? That seems totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
A letter from the Employers Forum on Disability—I dare say that other hon. Members have also received a copy—tells us:
There should be no exclusion from the Bill's provisions on grounds of an enterprise's size. It cannot be right for a disabled person to be discriminated against just because an enterprise has fewer than 20 employees.
That is something that we should take good note of.
In rural areas, such as the constituency that I represent, the vast majority of companies have fewer than 20 employees. That means that disabled people will have fewer civil rights in rural areas of Wales, Scotland or, indeed, England than in urban areas. That cannot be right. It cannot be conceptually right and it should not be the way in which we make progress on these matters.
I will deal now with some of the other problems of the Bill. On definitions, clause 5(4) contains the words "unsuitable for the employment". No definition is given of "suitable" or "unsuitable". It is totally open-ended.
Clause 5(1)(b), refers to an employer. It means that there can be an exclusion if
it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion.
That is a terribly subjective provision and cannot be a reasonable basis on which to make law.
I am also concerned about the position of those who may have long-term disabilities, perhaps HIV. Schedule 1 on page 27 of the Bill states that if a person has a progressive condition but
does not have an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, he shall be taken to have such an impairment if that is the expected effect of that condition.
In other words, if the expected effect of a condition in the fulness of time is disabling, that can be considered as a reason to exempt that person from the provisions of the Bill.
Again, that cannot be right. Steps should be taken to ensure that people who are currently—and will be for the foreseeable future—capable of undertaking work should not be discriminated against because of some long-term effects. After all, we all get older and eventually become less able than we were when we were younger.
For some people, the situation is even more serious. The Alzheimer's Disease Society states:
In its presents form the definition excludes from protection against discrimination, those people who can be identified by predictive genetic testing as being at risk of becoming disabled due to genetic causes.
Therefore, if science moves forward and more people can be predicted to have the potential of being disabled in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, they will fall outside the purview of the proposed legislation. Again, that cannot be right. We are told by the Genetic Interest Group in a letter from its director, Alastair Kent:
Our concern is that the Bill as it stands unfairly discriminates against people who have a genetic disorder but who are at present healthy—in other words, people who are pre-symptomatic for a genetic disorder.
I am sure that the Government have not thought through the implications adequately. If the Bill proceeds to Committee, I hope that they will look carefully at the implications and at conditions which may not currently exist but which can be predicted, because if people choose to predict them they can be used as a basis for discrimination.
On goods and services, the time scale of 15 years is too long. Questions need to be raised about the financial limits indicated in the Bill. Will the services include insurance services, particularly for those with learning difficulties? Will they include the needs of deaf people, for example, telephone systems, entryphones and emergency systems? Will services be included for blind people such as information in Braille? Will they include services to help with the difficulties that blind people experience with their guide dogs, for example, in taxis or restaurants?
I believe that all those areas must be clarified, because without general anti-discrimination legislation it becomes questionable as to whether loopholes might be created. I am concerned that a loophole might be created with regard to certain health and safety considerations and whether it will be a let-out for people who should be applying the legislation.
I deal now with education, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. It should most certainly be within the purview of the Bill. If the Education Act 1993 meets the objectives of anti-discrimination, there is no problem in having it built into the Bill. If it does not, it most certainly should be written into the Bill to ensure that people who need that safeguard are not left out, that they do not fall between two stools. No child should be denied access to mainstream education. I believe that it is discrimination if that access is denied. As I understand it, the disability allowance would not be available for disabled part-time students. To that extent, discrimination is built into the Bill if it does not take on board the position of those students.
A number of hon. Members applied themselves to enforcement. The main difference between the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill is that in the latter all that we have is access to the industrial tribunal system and some conciliation systems on a local level. No doubt those are very much to be welcomed, but the problem with industrial tribunals is that there is no legal aid.
That means that a well-off disabled person—I suppose that there are some—will have access to legal redress, while disabled people who are poor will be


prevented from getting their rights. That cannot be right. If we are talking about principles of anti-discrimination legislation, the Government should look again at that question. It must be addressed or the Bill will be seen as a toothless charade and the Government will lose the opportunity to do something really worth while.
There are a number of other problems in the Bill as it stands. There are problems for those with learning difficulties. Clause 14(3)(a)(ii) says that the conditions are that
the treatment is reasonable because the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or of giving an informed consent".
That is an extremely demeaning approach. Does a disabled person with learning difficulties lose his or her rights because he or she is incapable of giving an informed consent?
The whole approach in the past has been to ensure that there can be representation on behalf of those people to ensure that their wishes are taken on board. Exemption will take their rights away from them. That is nothing less than a specific discrimination against people with learning difficulties which has been built into the Bill. It surely cannot have been the Government's intention, but that is what we face, and Mencap feels strongly that that provision should be deleted.
There are other specific problems. Why are the voluntary organisations exempted, particularly when they may be the contractual suppliers of services to the public sector? In those circumstances, the rights of disabled people should be built into the legislation.
Schedule 1 requires registration, but in recent years there has been a move away from the stigma that goes with registration. To that extent, we are missing an opportunity. The Bill also refers to "clinically well-recognised illness". What on earth does that mean? If it cannot he defined, how will the courts be able to apply the law?
I hope that the Government will approach the Bill's Committee stage with an open mind to accepting drastic amendments. I hope that the Bill will be amended to adopt lock, stock and barrel the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. However, it seems possible that the long title has been drawn in a way specifically to avoid that. That is why I shall be voting against the Bill today. If it is not amendable in that direction, there is a serious problem.
Massive parts of the civil rights approach need to be transplanted into the Bill to make it acceptable. The Government have come some considerable way in the past two years, under pressure from all sorts of directions, to recognising the need for legislation. I now implore them to make the Bill comprehensive, enforceable and unambiguous. Then, and only then, will it achieve its objective of anti-discrimination legislation.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has a long and honourable record in the House of speaking for the disabled. I support his remarks on those groups who suffer from genetic disorders. I, too, have received such representations.
The hon. Gentleman described the Bill as a step in the right direction, but it is a great deal more than that. It is a massive move forward. It is a landmark Bill and this is an historic day. There has never been a day like this when the Government have put forward a Bill that will do so much for the disabled. The Opposition are mistaken in opposing it.
There has never been a Bill like it, certainly not in peacetime. The 1944 legislation was introduced during the war. The civil service exempted itself from that. I hope that it will not exempt itself from this Bill. I see that there are more civil servants in their Box today than there are Opposition Members on the Back Benches, which shows the complexity of the Bill.
The Government should be congratulated on introducing the Bill. I am sorry that the Opposition will seek to divide the House. They are mistaken to do so. They are churlish not to acknowledge the Government's tremendous record. In financial terms alone the Government's spending on the long-term disabled has trebled in real terms since 1979 to a current figure of £17 billion per annum.
The number of those who claim the various benefits, such as the invalid care allowance, has risen from 5,000 to 200,000. When the mobility allowance was introduced by the Labour Government in 1976, it was phased in over four years, during which time there were only 5,000 recipients; compare that with the 320,000 people who benefit today from the disability living allowance.
The Opposition are churlish in their approach. They seem to have committed themselves to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which would cost many billions of pounds. I do not know whether they have come forward with an actual cost, but the Government's sensible and wise Bill has been costed at a modest figure which can be accepted.
I am surprised that the Opposition spend so much time attacking the provision exempting small firms with fewer than 20 employees. That has always been so with the quota. When Labour was in power it made no attempt to alter it. There is a perfectly logical reason. Some firms may employ disabled people in proportion to their size, but small firms cannot employ half a person.
The Employers Forum on Disability says that 60 per cent. of small firms of 10 people or fewer already employ a disabled person, so that is not where the problem is. The problem is much more with larger organisations, particularly in the public sector. The TUC produced an interesting paper showing than an extra 100,000 people could be employed, and quoted 42 health authorities and local authorities which employed no registered disabled person.
The Bill is a triumph for the Government and a personal triumph for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his wife, Norma Major, have a great record of campaigning for the disabled, particularly for Mencap, in their constituency and now nationally. Mencap is one of the many organisations which have commended the Government on the Bill's objectives.
I congratulate the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), and the present Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on their work in making the Bill possible. I also thank them for speaking to members of the Conservative disability group committee on what I think is a unique telephone


conference hook-up. Members of that committee are based all over the country and cannot travel at all easily. Both my hon. Friends have helpfully participated in those unique hook-ups.
That committee was also well received when it visited Ministers to discuss the arrangements that their Departments make for the disabled. We have had a number of such visits, including to the Department of Transport, whose arrangements are outstanding. In particular, Anne Frye has an outstanding record in making provisions for the disabled in that Department.
In the Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Minister of State, has made an outstanding contribution. Just a week ago a delegation visited the Department of the Environment to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been responsible for an outstanding consultation paper which has just been published. Within the Department of Employment the placement, assessment and counselling teams, PAD's, have an excellent record in placing more and more disabled people in employment.

Mr. Barnes: I offer my services as promoter of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which I shall be introducing on 10 February, to the Conservative disability network which has had discussions with Ministers on the content of the Bill so that we may debate the alternative provisions contained in that comprehensive legislation.

Mr. Thurnham: One of the major deficiencies of that Bill was the lack of consultation with interested parties. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what people had said about the Bill he would know that it is impractical. For instance, the proposals on small firms are impractical. The Labour party always seems to favour a bureaucratic solution. It was Mr. Leo McKinstry, a former Labour councillor and adviser to two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who, only the other day, among a number of interesting points that he made, said:
That's what Labour is good at: creating bureaucracy.
That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Bill would end up doing. It would also be a lawyer's beanfeast.
One of the Government's most commendable actions is that of setting an example. I should like the code of practice for civil service employment to be extended much more widely throughout the public sector. Organisations such as the BBC fall far short of what can be done in the public sector. It employs only 0.3 per cent. under the old quota arrangements. Most hon. Members would agree that the BBC could set an example and employ more than its quota.
I ask Ministers to extend the civil service code to the public sector, where a great deal more can be done. The Trades Union Congress paper was especially interesting in that respect. I recommend hon. Members to consider how an additional 100,000 jobs could be created in the public sector. That is where the deficiencies exist. They do not lie with small firms, many of which are employing more than their quota.
I have had discussions with Department of Employment officials in my constituency. They say that, when they try to place someone with disabilities in a job, they do not at first go to the town hall or health authority; they go to private employers, who they know have a record of doing

what they can to employ disabled people. The Government should set an example not just in the civil service, but throughout the public sector because there is no doubt that a great deal more can be done, with 12 local authorities and 30 health authorities not employing any registered disabled people. Those organisations will say, "Ah, we employ disabled people who are not registered," but that applies across the board. There is something wrong if they are not already employing people who are registered disabled.
It is more than 12 years since my wife and I adopted Stephen, who is severely mentally and physically handicapped. During those 12 years, we have noticed a great improvement in the general facilities and equipment which are available. In so many ways, access is a great deal easier, pavement kerbs have been dropped, and one can go so much more readily into hotels and restaurants. Of course, he enjoys going on holiday and travelling a great deal. Sun Rise Medical is just one of many firms that produce far better wheelchairs than were available years ago. From personal experience, I can say that attitudes and conditions have much improved.
The Bill is exactly the right way forward for the country to gain a much more ready acceptance of our aims. It will avoid the backlash and negative reaction that could have resulted from some of the Opposition's proposals. I ask the Opposition to think again before dividing the House this evening on such an excellent Bill; it should be commended by every hon. Member.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I should like to start by saying how much I agreed with everything said by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He has pinched about half my speech—you might say mercifully, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and that will shorten the proceedings somewhat.
The Bill should be entitled "Disability Discrimination (Exceptions) Bill" because it is far more remarkable for the areas of personal and civil activity that it excludes from its coverage than for those that it includes. It is in the nature of that exclusion that the real trouble with the Bill lies.
After so many years of struggle over the issue of civil rights for disabled persons and, in particular, after the disgraceful talking out last year of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), it is tempting to accept the Government's Bill at least as a gesture towards public opinion. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it may need extension and improvement, but it is a start in the right direction. As it stands, however, it will be an immense obstacle to progress. In the words of one outstanding campaigner, Rachel Hurst:
This Bill will set hack the cause of disabled people by 20 years.
It is important that the Bill is fundamentally amended and that the many Conservative Members who support disabled persons' campaigns realise why it should be amended to incorporate much of the purpose of my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill.
I refer for brevity to the explanatory and financial memorandum at the start of the Bill. We are told in the first paragraph:
The Bill introduces a right for disabled people not to be discriminated against when applying for employment or when employed".


That is simply not so. The second paragraph states:
The Bill also introduces a right of access for disabled people to goods, facilities and services, which will require service providers to adapt their policies
and so forth. That is simply not so. In both cases, greater accuracy would be served if the word "some" were inserted; the Bill would then read: "a right for some disabled people not to be discriminated against in employment matters", and "a right of access for disabled people to some goods, facilities and services".
The exemptions in the Bill amount to the exclusion of about 96 per cent. of businesses in the United Kingdom from the parameters of the legislation. There is some dispute about the figures and about the proportion of the work force involved, but a substantial proportion of the work force is left out of the Bill's provisions.
As has been pointed out, the Government's policy has been consistently to encourage the growth of the small business sector as a proportion of our economy. The Bill sets the smaller end of that sector, businesses with 20 or fewer employees, on one side. There is not even talk of phasing in. The under-20 sector, if I can call it that, makes no contribution in the Bill.
The Bill makes specific the figure of 20 and we have had some brief exchanges about that. I think that the Minister was trying to imply that it could be increased by order, but of course it could also be decreased. The exceptions in the Bill include huge swathes of civil and social activity, most notably all existing education provisions—as far as I can tell—and all means of transport. Numerous smaller exceptions exist which, added together, further debilitate the Bill.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned a number of those exceptions, but, in addition, clause 14(3)(b) contains a qualification to the excellent clause 12(1)(a). Clause 14 states:
a provider of services is justified in treating a disabled person less favourably
if that treatment is
necessary in order for the provider of services to be able to provide the service to other members of the public.
That caveat could be ruthlessly exploited in terms of, for example, queues that were holding up a service in a particular place.
Clause 14(4) makes it clear that the regulations will exclude insurance services. I noted that the Minister said that the Government were talking with the insurance and financial services sector to try to do something about that, but the clause specifically seems to presage the exclusion of insurance services from coverage by the Bill. That is one of the elements of discrimination that is most frequently cited by disabled people and their organisations. The Leonard Cheshire Foundation document, which I assume all hon. Members have received, has numerous examples of strong complaints about that.
Clause 28(3) excludes from the Bill
any act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
That could cover a multitude of sins. On top of such specific exceptions, the Bill contains dozens of references, hints, nudges and indicators of how the regulations will further undermine what purports to be the intention of the Bill.
What the Minister announced on television as a revolution in favour of disabled people proves, on examination, to be a squeak of good will, strangulated by the Treasury and by the fear of incommoding businesses and public services. I do not underestimate those sectors; they obviously must be taken into account. With appropriate phasing and funding, the revolution could be achieved. Employers are by no means universally hostile. Last autumn, Mr. Robin Gilbert, the Confederation of British Industry director of employment affairs, said:
we need a new and effective framework of law in this area which opens up opportunities for people with disabilities so that they can make a fuller contribution in the workplace and as consumers".
He is not the only business person to have the breadth of vision to understand that a significant shift of access to employment for disabled people will ultimately pay for itself in national terms, as well as achieve its main purpose of enhancing the lives of up to 6.5 million of our fellow citizens.
Earlier, I mentioned education and transport. It seems clear that, in the mind set of perhaps a majority of people, disabled people are odd, discomfiting or somehow insufficient, a view that much of this Bill and all of the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood seek to tackle. That mind set is formed in youth at school, or at least it is not corrected at school.
There can be little doubt that anyone is disabled by virtue of exclusion from a school or college because of, for example, mobility difficulties. The exclusion in clause 12 of virtually all education services from the Bill's provisions is astonishing, contrasting starkly with the treatment of the same sector in the private Member's Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. The second half of clause 12 of the Government Bill is totally exclusive, whereas clause 12 of my hon. Friend's Bill was totally inclusive. That, I feel, symbolises the difference between the two Bills.
The Minister claimed that the policy of "mainstreaming" in schools pursued by Government and local authorities—and by many schools themselves—was addressing the problem, and there is no doubt that much good work and many better intentions have emerged. Colleges in particular, largely impelled by the need to secure student fees from almost every possible source, have done a great deal to improve access.
I remember with horror having to lift a wheelchair user and his wheelchair—with the help of three of my students—up four flights of stone stairs to gain access to certain classrooms in the college at which I then taught. Much begging-bowl work had to be done with local businesses and others to get a lift put in; but such problems are slowly improving. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) spoke extremely well about the need for access provision for, in particular, part-time students, so I shall not rehearse those arguments again.
Under section 21 of the Education Act 1993, local education authorities are obliged to survey schools for such purposes on behalf of the Department for Education. In my own LEA, Lancashire, the vast majority of schools are not adapted for disabled access. Over the past few years just over 100 have been so adapted—out of a total of just over 700—but in almost all cases that has been done to cater for the needs of individual statemented pupils with specific difficulties. Although every effort is


made in the process, it cannot be guaranteed that the adaptation will suit a subsequent student with a different special need.
The severe constraints on LEA spending in recent years have made progress in that direction very problematic; this year's swingeing cuts are making it impossible. Lancashire, for example, has had a total cumulative shortfall of £75 million in its education standard spending assessment over the past three years, and simply cannot sustain a realistic adaptation programme. It is all very well to plan full access for new schools, but—like other authorities—Lancashire has hundreds of Victorian schools with flights of stone steps and inaccessible toilets. At the present rate at which my LEA is allowed to replace those schools, replacing them will take just over 800 years—although I do not suppose that that will bother any of us.
Many—probably most—schools remain at least partly inaccessible to disabled people. Of course that cannot be corrected overnight, but a framework in law that would ensure its correction over a finite period should be enshrined in any legislation. It should, for example, be possible to ensure that all school premises that are entirely on the ground floor are made wholly accessible in quite a short time, and SSAs, credit approvals and grants should allow LEAs and other authorities to achieve that.
Schools and colleges that are multi-storey or have scattered campuses should be set a more generous target, with phased funding. Until that is achieved, or at least projected, for many parents of young people with disabilities choice of school, or even preference, will remain a cruel myth—and I have not even mentioned the continuing revenue consequences of what we are discussing.
The example of my constituent Nicky Crane is a case in point. Nicky is a multiply disabled 12-year-old whose parents insisted that he be "mainstreamed" in his primary school. An heroic effort by Tarleton county primary school enabled him to achieve that, and to be astonishingly well integrated in the school. During the search for a secondary school place, Nicky stayed for an extra year at the primary school. The nearby high school is multi-storey, and the Cranes' demand for a place there for their son put both the school and the LEA in terrible difficulties. I know that it is not the Minister's function to deal with the details; I am simply trying to describe the huge problems caused to people such as the Cranes by disability discrimination.
The costs of the boy's proper care and teaching, in terms of capital spend and the on-going revenue implications, were enormous, and the situation has now reached deadlock. Naturally the parents dug in their heels, and in the interim the boy's progress has been halted or even reversed. I am talking not of an urban area but of a rural area where provision is scattered, and there is no other reasonable choice of secondary school. I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Caernarfon said about the special difficulties that the Bill poses for rural areas.
If such bitter, even tragic, struggles are not eventually to be scattered across the country, we shall need a framework of law involving realistic proposals for funding and timing. It is not acceptable for disabled students to be seen simply as a financial problem. Attitudes to disabled people that are revealed in discriminatory employment practices and automatic

exclusion from some services have much of their origin in attitudes learnt in childhood; the Bill should try to tackle that, but it does not.
The means of access to vehicles is also excluded from clause 12(5)(b). The Minister may know of the number of trains that are currently inaccessible to most physically disabled people. One side of a station close to where I live, Burscough Bridge, is currently inaccessible to people with mobility difficulties; unfortunately, the waiting room and ticket office are sited on that side. Clause 12(3), which deals with infrastructure, might well cure the problem, which is welcome, but a second problem remains: the platforms at Burscough Bridge are several feet lower than the steps on to the trains.
It is a moot point whether that problem comes under "access to ‖ place" or access to
the use of any means of transport",
but no doubt that can be examined in Committee. I do, however, have a wonderful photograph of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—who, although he is not the tallest of men, is physically fit and active—trying to step on to a train at Burscough Bridge. He has one foot on the step of the train, and it is above the level of his waist. I have seen elderly people sitting on the carriage floor swinging their legs down to try to reach the platform. Nothing in the Bill tries to tackle that problem, which exists throughout the country.
I have tried to illustrate with examples some of the problems experienced by disabled people in my constituency—problems that I have observed for myself. The Bill specifically rules out solutions to those problems. Despite its "curate's egg" nature, it is a massive con trick that will not fool those who are most desperate for proper and inclusive legislation. Its language is reassuring and accommodating, and the Minister has presented it with charm; but the actuality of what it sets out to achieve is pathetic. It could constitute a monumental barrier to essential progress in the achievement of civil rights for disabled persons—and, indeed, its timing suggests that it is intended to constitute such a barrier.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) said that the Disability Discrimination Bill was a con trick, while the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—who opened the debate for the Opposition—said that it was weak and narrow. I believe, however, that the Bill is both broad and practical.
I support the Bill for three reasons. First, it continues the strides made by the Government on behalf of the disabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said, it is a landmark Bill and, as a consequence, it should not be belittled. Secondly, the Bill is fully in line with what I believe conservatism is all about—helping those who are less able to help themselves, but rewarding ability. The Bill enhances opportunities and rewards merit, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Thirdly, the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said, is a practical measure to get legislation passed for the disabled.
I have been concerned that a myth has been growing during the debate about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which was promoted by the hon. Member


for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). In no way do I deprecate anything that the hon. Gentleman has done on this subject, and I commend the motives of the actions which he has taken in the Chamber during the past few months. Following on from a discussion that the hon. Gentleman and I had in the Chamber today, I would like to quote what the hon. Gentleman said on 29 April during a debate on a motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) to allow more time to debate the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I shall quote three extracts from the hon. Gentleman's speech which put the matter into perspective.
He said:
As supporters of the Bill, we went out of our way to table amendments to address the concerns that the Government had raised".
All that was right and proper. He later said:
However, the key point about costs is that the Bill specifically ensures that, if any provision would cause undue hardship to an enterprise, firm or business, that provision would effectively be waived. Undue hardship specifically relates to the cost of adaptations that might be necessary.
Again, that is fair and reasonable. Later still, the hon. Gentleman said:
As we have specifically said … the timetable for those changes should not be set out in the Bill but should be for the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval".—[0fficial Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 510–527]
My point is that we should get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill into perspective. Some of the arguments made by Opposition Members might make one think that it is an all-embracing Bill, yet some of the criticisms which hon. Members make about the Disability Discrimination Bill also relate to matters enshrined in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

Mr. Barnes: The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive, but it is obvious that all the rights contained in it cannot be put into practical application overnight. Therefore, it contains provisions for a commission to operate a dynamic role over time to extend and develop the measures. The Bill is not restrictive and limited in the way in which the Disability Discrimination Bill, which the hon. Gentleman supports, is.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I just quoted. There were many let-out clauses in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and many of the issues were completely unenforceable.
Some hon. Members have spoken about clause 7, which deals with the exemption for firms with 20 employees or fewer. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) said that clause 7 could be discussed in Committee. I believe that that is so. The question whether the criterion is the number of people employed or the turnover of a company should also be discussed.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that Australian and New Zealand legislation specifies no limit whereby firms might be exempt, and hon. Members may recall that the United States has a limit of 15 employees. I would remind the House, however, that the legislation in Australia and New Zealand is substantially weaker than that proposed by the Government today. I

believe that this Government, and all Governments, have a duty of care to ensure that the safety net for those who are unable to help themselves is of a fine enough mesh that no one slips through. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said, that it is indeed a landmark Bill.
I would have preferred the Bill to be retitled Opportunities for the Disabled Bill, rather than what I would call the politically correct Disability Discrimination Bill. The civil rights lobby fails to recognise that positive discrimination—however well-meaning—is wrong. People want to be employed because of their ability, rather than because of their disability. [Interruption.] I suspect that hon. Members agree with that, and the hon. Member for Kingswood is showing assent.
In a debate on this subject last year, I made the point that I have a researcher who suffers from a disability. I make the point again that he would want to be employed because of his capability, and not because of his disability. Positive discrimination, or the politically correct term "affirmative action", merely promotes resentment among the work force and, far from changing prejudices, reinforces them. Political correctness has worked against my researcher. He now works for a lobbying company since being employed by me.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman should choose his words carefully.

Mr. Fabricant: I am choosing my words carefully—for my researcher's sake and not for mine. For fear of the media, the lobbying company told my researcher that he could not keep his House of Commons pass.[Interruption.] As a consequence, he is now unable to use the parking facilities for the disabled here. When I met him—[Laughter.] I am amazed that hon. Members find this funny. When I met him yesterday in Central Lobby, he was exhausted because of his enforced walk on sticks. I believe that that makes a mockery of the so-called anti-sleaze campaign being waged by the Opposition.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I do not make light of the difficulties with which the hon. Gentleman's researcher must cope. The point that I am making, and which the hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of, is that—as far as I know—lobbying companies do not issue passes for this place, and at no time should they do so.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I issued the pass because he was my researcher. However, the lobbying company—his employer—was featured on a television programme on Sunday called "On The Record." He himself was not featured.

Mr. Pickthall: Who is this person's employer—the hon. Gentleman or the lobbying company?

Mr. Fabricant: The researcher works for the lobbying company, but in his spare time he also works for me. [Interruption.] That is right and proper. I have no connections with the lobbying company whatsoever, and the researcher does no work for me that is relevant to his lobbying company. There is no problem or conflict of interest whatsoever.
When the lobbying company was approached by the BBC, it ordered him—wrongly, in my view—either to give up the pass that I had issued him or to give up his


job. That was absolutely wrong. He still works for me in his spare time, but he has lost his pass. That is political correctness working against disabled people. It is McCarthyism.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: It is indeed a case for this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Civil Rights Bill."]
I accept that an advisory body in the shape of a national council for the disabled could be a good thing, but I have some reservations. It must be made clear that the council will not become yet another costly and unwieldy organisation that spends its time meddling in our day-to-day affairs. In an era of deregulation, it is good that the Government are not imposing unfair burdens on businesses and that is why I welcome clause 7.
Sadly, ensuring that disabled people are not denied opportunities open to others cannot happen overnight. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, a change of attitude is necessary. It will come about, not through the passing of politically correct measures that impose impossible burdens on business, but by creating a climate of persuasion, through education in schools and at the workplace. The hon. Member for Kingswood recognised that when he produced his Bill, as I pointed out when I quoted some Hansard extrats from earlier this year.
The practical measures proposed in the Bill should do much to continue to change attitudes towards the disabled and to enable them to live still more valued and creative lives in our community. For that reason, I commend this constructive Bill to the House.

Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome this debate and the fact that the Government now recognise the strength of feeling in support of equal rights for disabled people.
What has happened, since the Government killed off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year, to bring forth, first, a ministerial statement, then a consultation document, a change of Minister and a White Paper and now, the Bill? The Government realised the strength of feeling in support of equal rights for disabled people, and the credit for that must go to all the people and organisations that raised public awareness on the issue. I pay special tribute to the "Rights Now" campaign and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.
I welcome the Government's recognition of the gross injustice of discrimination against disabled people and the need to do something about it. I also welcome their recognition of the fact that education and persuasion on their own are not sufficient to deal with the issue, and their agreement that legislation is workable and necessary. I do not welcome the Bill, however, and I am not being churlish—an accusation that was levelled at some of my colleagues.
There are massive differences between the Government's Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Essentially, the problems with the Government's Bill are that it is not comprehensive and will not be effective or enforceable. Reference was made to the position of the all-party disablement group. It is true that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam),

with whom I have worked closely on the issue for some years as one of the co-chairs of that group, expressed support for the Government's Bill. I must place on record, however, that the view of the all-party disablement group, of which I now happen to be secretary, is more accurately reflected in our submission on the Government's consultation document. The overwhelming majority of members of that group, of all political parties—I stress that—supported the civil rights approach.
Many hon. Members have dealt with the first problem, so I shall be brief. The Bill is certainly not comprehensive; it fails to deal with discrimination in a number of respects and provides for exemptions. Hon. Members have mentioned education and transport because, last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that they were covered by the Bill. The Minister's device of saying that when the Prime Minister referred to education and transport, he merely meant that the employment provisions of the Bill would apply to those sectors, was ingenious, but it did not fool anyone because the Prime Minister's full answer to the question can be read in Hansard. He dealt with the employment provisions before he identified education and transport as sectors in which the Bill dealt with discrimination.
Clause 12 excludes education and means of transport. I never carelessly charge that the House has been misled and, naturally, if the Prime Minister had implied anything contrary to clause 12, he would have been incorrect. Clause 12 excludes education, the means of transport and some other areas.
I am pleased that the Minister said that exclusions relating to the renting and purchasing of property will be reconsidered, but clause 12 excludes other things, including civic rights, and contains a general provision to enable whatever exclusions the Minister might want. The Bill is not comprehensive if it provides for exclusions.
The employment provisions also show that the Bill is not comprehensive; on the contrary, it is discriminatory. Companies that employ fewer than 20 employees are to be let out. Why? I cannot understand it, nor can the Confederation of British Industry or those who responded to the Government's consultation document.
The red book that I have here—a red book that I find more interesting than the other one to which reference is often made—contains important information about what those consulted on the Government's measures said. In answer to the question, "Should small firms be excluded?" 84 per cent. of consultees said no. That percentage was exceeded only by the percentage of employers who said no—91 per cent. Frankly, I cannot comprehend why the Minister chooses to ignore that response.
Clause 7 deals with exemptions for small businesses and subsection (2) states:
The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1)"—
which refers to 20 employees—
by substituting, for the number of employees for the time being referred to there, a larger or smaller number.
I hoped that the assumption was that the Minister wanted to apply the measures to all firms and that we might start at 20 employees and work down, but the Bill allows him to start at 20 and work up. It is bad enough that one third of employees are to be excluded, but the Minister is giving himself the power to exclude the majority.
The Bill defines a disabled person as someone who has
a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his"—


or her—
ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The Government are saying that discrimination is okay and acceptable if impairment is not substantial, and it is fine if it is based on short-term impairment. Discrimination on the basis of past, perceived or expected impairment is also acceptable. I do not believe that that is so, and that is why the definition of disablement needs to be amended for the purposes of the Bill. It should not be lawful to discriminate against someone who has a previous history of mental illness, or is HIV positive and perceived, or expected, to be impaired.
Enforceability is a key issue because the new rights—however limited—will be effective only if they are enforceable. Rights that cannot be enforced are frequently worse than no rights at all, simply because they obscure the true nature of discrimination—one gets the impression that measures are being taken to deal with discrimination, which we all recognise exists, but the situation is not significantly improved if one cannot enforce them and it could be made worse.

Mr. Fabricant: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he uses that to argue in favour of his original Bill, rather than this Government Bill, however, does he not accept my earlier quotations, in which I proved that his Bill contained so many opt-outs that it suffered the same deficiencies—his term, not mine, as that is what he implies they are?

Mr. Berry: Of course I agree with the quotation which the hon. Gentleman cited earlier, because I uttered the words in the first place.
One of the fundamental differences between the Government's Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is the fact that the national disability council proposed in the Government's Bill is no substitute for the disability rights commission because it will not have similar powers to investigate and enforce to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Campaign for Racial Equality. Under the Government's proposals, disabled people will find it extremely difficult to enforce their rights. Legal aid is not available for tribunals and is pretty difficult to get for anything else.
On enforcement, we must ask why disabled people are treated fundamentally differently from people who suffer discrimination on grounds of gender and race. The Government say, "Well, it is too bad. In any case, we are not happy about the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Campaign for Racial Equality." The White Paper says that the purpose of the national disability council is
to advise the Government on the progress being made to tackle discrimination against disabled people
and
to advise the Government on measures to reduce or eliminate discrimination".
I should have thought that the Government had received all the advice that they need. Organisations of disabled people and many others have been offering advice for years and years. They want the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. If the Government want advice on what disabled people want, they should listen to the "Rights Now" campaign, which represents every major organisation for disabled people—some 50 organisations,

which I do not have time to list. They should listen also to the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, which represents another 100 or so organisations and 300,000 individuals. It is understandable why those groups feel that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is the correct approach.
When the Government consulted on their proposals last summer, a number of us asked why they did not consult on the civil rights Bill as well. They refused to do so. Nevertheless, the responses to their consultation document—the red book—show overwhelming support for the civil rights Bill. Of those who mentioned the civil rights Bill, 98 per cent. supported it. Why would the Government want to set up a national disability council to tell them what they already know—that what disabled people want is proper anti-discrimination legislation?
Support for that civil rights approach has come from every organisation of and for disabled people, the 98 per cent. of those who refer to civil rights legislation in the Government's consultation exercise, the all-party disablement group and a clear majority of Members of Parliament. I remind hon. Members that not a single vote was cast last year against the civil rights Bill. Not only did it pass Second Reading by 231 votes to nil, but at no stage on Second Reading or in Committee was a vote cast against a single clause. We all know how the Bill was blocked. It was not because we lost the votes or the arguments.
Hon. Members must determine their position on the Government's proposals and the reasoned amendment. I hope that they will support the amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and support the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 10 February. By their actions today and on 10 February, hon. Members can help bring about civil rights for disabled people. If not, we shall demonstrate that, collectively, we are part of the problem.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the Government's frank recognition that discrimination against disabled people in our society is extensive, utterly unacceptable and demeaning to us all and that the Government should act to eliminate it.
To exclude people with impairments and disable them from playing the full part that they might is to disable our society and ourselves. It diminishes, or should diminish, our self-respect, for we are members—limbs—one of another in our body politic. By discriminating, we maim our humanity, with incalculable consequences. We also rob ourselves of our economic potential with consequences that are, at least approximately, calculable, although they should be calculated on a proper cost-benefit analysis rather than a one-sided, solely negative compliance cost basis.
Our public debate and the Government's view have developed a long way in the past year or so. The credit for that must go, above all, to the disabled people who have carried the banner of the "Rights Now" campaign. They, with other committed supporters—it gives me pleasure to mention the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whose speech I follow—have insisted that, in Parliament and Government, we should face our responsibilities.
I also acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) needed no persuasion on that. His task, on which he was determined, was to persuade others. Since my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People succeeded him in office, he has acted with alacrity and skill to gain acceptance in the Government of much that needs to be done.
I welcome, therefore, the determination that the White Paper and Bill express to end unjustifiable discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services, as well as to monitor and ensure that good advice is available to the Government. If the Bill, even as it stands, becomes law, disabled people's prospects will be significantly improved. I hope, however, that in its passage through Parliament, it will be amended to carry us further forward.
My hon. Friend states in the White Paper the Government's "one central objective" as being
the elimination of discrimination against disabled people".
That is exactly as it should be; but the Bill fails to meet that objective in a range of important ways—notably, by offering too little on education, transport, and civic rights and duties.
I welcome the enlargement of the Bill's scope to include the sale and letting of property, which my hon. Friend the Minister announced this afternoon. What we need, however, is a resounding new clause at the head of the Bill to establish a general duty not to discriminate unjustifiably against disabled people in any sphere whatever.
We must improve the definitions in the Bill. The Government have made a morass in schedule 1, where they set out on the impossible task of specifying the meaning of disability. Rather than attempt to enumerate or describe the conditions and contingencies that amount to impairment, my hon. Friend should have accepted the broad definition used in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which draws on the hard-won experience of other countries, notably the United States of America, which are ahead of us in this matter.
My right hon. and hon. Friends used to intimate, as an objection to anti-discrimination legislation, that it would provide a field day for lawyers. Schedule 1, by using expressions such as "clinically well-recognised illness" and
circumstances in which … an effect which would otherwise be a long-term effect is to be treated as not being such an effect",
will be a positive paradise for lawyers and, by the same token, infernal for disabled people.
I am particularly concerned that the definitions in the Bill will not protect from discrimination people who have a history or reputation of mental illness and people who are HIV positive.
Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern, which was powerfully expressed by the Huntington's Disease Association, a body with which I have had some involvement over the years, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and the Genetic Interest Group, representing more than 100 charities, that paragraph 7(2) of schedule 1 specifically excludes from protection against discrimination people who do not yet show symptoms of a disease but are likely to do so in time because of genetic factors? The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) touched on that subject.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister recognise that that provision will discriminate appallingly against people who have to expect eventually to suffer from a terrible disease such as Huntington's and whose life is difficult enough without being exposed to discrimination in the labour market? Does he realise that that provision will powerfully discourage people from undergoing predictive tests? If those tests produce the feared result, people will at least be able to receive the appropriate medical treatment and plan their lives in the light of the knowledge that the tests provide.
I very much regret that, at this stage, my right hon. Friends do not propose to bring businesses employing fewer than 20 people within the requirement not to discriminate. The concept of reasonableness in the Bill provides the necessary safeguards. It simply cannot be right that people's basic rights as citizens and members of our society should depend on who happens to employ them. It is unimaginable that we would say to an employer who wanted to operate a racist recruitment policy, "Okay, since it is only a small business, you can indulge your prejudice," and that we should enshrine that in law. We should insist no less on basic decency where disabled people's employment is concerned.
I note that it is provided that the threshold of 20 may be changed by regulation. If the Department of Trade and Industry were to pluck up its courage, perhaps we might match the Americans at 15. That, too, would not be good enough. We should straight away match the Australians, and I believe the New Zealanders, who do not allow discrimination in employment in businesses of any size.
I am willing, of course, to contemplate reasonable phasing-in periods. The access-to-work scheme, properly funded by the Government, should also be permanent. We must, however, be determined on this matter of a threshold, because it is in smaller businesses—the most rapidly growing sector, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) observed—that discrimination is most often found. It is simply wrong to establish in the law of the land that unreasonable, unjustified discrimination may be condoned anywhere.
It seems that the Government find it peculiarly difficult to reconcile themselves to establishing a disability rights commission with the role and powers to match those of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. It really is time that those bodies were redeemed from the demonology of my right hon. Friends' imaginings. They do important good—not by means of for ever meddling and bullying, as certain folklore tells us, but because, by their very existence and by virtue of powers which they rarely use but hold in reserve, they guard against discrimination. A national disability council, such as the Government propose, with powers to advise and draw up codes of practice, but with no powers to investigate and enforce, will be quite insufficient.
All too often, disabled people, whose means are most often less than those of the generality of our fellow citizens, will not be able of themselves to sustain the legal rights created for them in the Bill. There will be no legal aid to assist them in taking cases to industrial tribunals. If this proposed law against discrimination is not to be hollow, it is imperative that a disability rights commission is created with power truly to champion disabled people,


individually and in class actions, which, notwithstanding my hon. Friend the Minister's view, could be of great value.
Everyone wants to proceed by good will and conciliation, but we cannot sufficiently depend on that. Powers of enforcement would need to be used only occasionally, but their latent existence is indispensable if we are to overcome prejudice.
My last contention is that the Bill should incorporate provisions to amend the National Assistance Act 1948 to remove the bar to local authority social services departments making cash payments to disabled people, so that, if they wish to do so, they can manage their own budgets for personal and domestic care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed in principle to remove that obstacle to independent living, but, presumably for reasons of bureaucratic demarcation, the Bill does not so provide.
I recognise, of course, that the detail of a model scheme needs to be worked out carefully, but good progress has already been made. At the request of a number of us, members of the Association of Directors of Social Services submitted a scheme to my right hon. Friend last summer. Disabled people should not have to wait for that provision another year. We should use the legislative opportunity of this Bill to remove the block in primary legislation and the details can be established in secondary legislation or by whatever other means is appropriate.
I shall not support the reasoned amendment and I shall vote for the Bill on Second Reading. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is the model of legislation that I wanted the Government to adopt. It provides the clear-cut affirmation of values and the comprehensive principle that we should assert. However, I accept absolutely the good faith and good will of my hon. Friend the Minister. The Bill contains much that is good and important. We should use it, in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, as a platform on which to build. I will certainly seek to have it amended to improve its definitions and its scope and to incorporate the necessary powers of enforcement.
If the Bill were defeated tonight by Conservative Members supporting the reasoned amendment declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, and if the Government were then, regrettably, not to support the private Member's Bill, there would be no legislative advance for disabled people. Without in any way abandoning our ideals, let us be practical and constructive.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). In a previous incarnation as a Government Whip he helped me when I piloted my Bill, now known as the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, through the House. I welcome the balanced approach that he demonstrated tonight.
I welcome the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is gratifying to see that the Government have attained a degree of enlightenment over the plight of the disabled, albeit as a direct result of democratic pressure within the Chamber and from outside. I hasten also to say that despite the fevered imagination of some that a deal has

been done with the Ulster Unionists to extend the scope of the Bill to Northern Ireland, that has not happened. I welcome, however, the Minister's announcement to do just that.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rebuked hon. Members for their adversarial approach to the Bill. The reality is that it is the job of the Opposition parties to test Government proposals and to push them. Because of the legislative method that has been adopted for Northern Ireland over the years—we have had no opportunity to explore, test or amend Bills—some bad legislation has, unfortunately, been introduced. If such an adversarial approach was not taken to the Disability Discrimination Bill, it, too, would run the risk of being bad legislation.

Mr. Barnes: The Government's last-minute concession to extend the scope of the Bill, once it is in Committee, to Northern Ireland may have something to do with the pressure openly exerted by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland, because four of those hon. Members, who represent different political parties and between whom there are often considerable disagreements, have sponsored my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. It commands the support of three other political parties of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept that. If hon. Members remember my intervention during business questions and on other occasions, they will recall that that pressure was exerted openly. Perhaps I am in a unique position tonight because I represent the commonality of political interests in Northern Ireland.
The House will be aware that, for many years, I have been at the forefront of the campaign for disability rights. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, I am a co-sponsor of his Bill, which will be discussed by the House soon. That Bill would solve most of the discriminatory problems faced by the disabled, but the Disability Discrimination Bill will not do that. Given my professional background, I might ask,"Who doth hinder the union of the two?", because we might do better to unite those Bills if we are truly concerned about the interests of those with disabilities.
The call for comprehensive legislation on the issue is clear. I am not usually known as a supporter of quangos, but I call in support of my position the Government's own human rights watchdog in Northern Ireland—the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. Among the recommendations in its recent comprehensive report on disability, the committee comments on the preparation for the Bill. It has done much research in it, some of which is unique. The committee says:
the Commission has become convinced that the proposals in the government consultation paper do not represent an adequate response to the issues revealed by the research. In effect they do not meet the concerns identified by the research team in respect of, for example, education, employment and mobility. The rights predicated in the paper seem unenforceable in practice—since legal aid would not be available and there is no provision for an effective enforcement agency.
There we have it—an honest opinion by, I believe, an independent Government body.
The report commends the former Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced in the previous Session by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which is being


introduced again by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. I have received a similar message from people involved in disability action in Northern Ireland.
As I understand it, the Bill fails in several aspects. I acknowledge that it is complex in many ways. 1 was amused when the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) commented that there were more advisers in the Box than there were hon. Members on the Back Benches. He would have been more accurate if he had looked at those on the Conservative Back Benches at the time, because throughout the debate the Opposition have normally been running ahead of them and we are now just about equal.
Clause 7 states that the Bill will not apply to small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. That has been mentioned before, but it is doubly unfortunate in the Northern Ireland context, for I understand that about 90 per cent. of companies in Northern Ireland have fewer than 10 employees. That fact makes nonsense of the provisions in the Bill. It is not the size of a firm or, for that matter, the turnover of the firm, that matters, but the fact that someone who is able to work in a specific post is disqualified from doing so—and sometimes not even interviewed for a post because he or she may have some disability.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to the second issue to which I shall draw the House's attention—genetic testing. I am worried about genetic screening and access to that information. The narrow definition of disability will discriminate against those people who can be identified by predictive genetic testing as being at risk of becoming disabled as a result of genetic causes.
I understand that the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who will reply to the debate, may have some anxieties, as I have, at another level about genetic testing, but it appears to me that the information from such tests, were it to be made available, might also be used to discriminate against a person applying for insurance cover, for example. Legislation that takes into account the rapid developments in genetic engineering must be included in the Bill.
One of the objections to the earlier Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was its cost, the estimates of which escalated beyond human comprehension. Many of the objections revolved around transport costs—the costs of new coaches, buses and so on. I understand that one of the figures quoted was that an increase of about 25 per cent. on the usual cost of a bus would be required if we were to provide an integrated transport system by road for people with disability—and age can also be a disability if one wishes to hop on a bus.
The issue is interesting. I spoke today to a Northern Ireland coach company, Robert Wright and Son of Ballymena, and I can give the House at least some good news. That company is in the process of finalising its plans and announcing that it will manufacture other low access coaches, which can carry as many as 70 people at a cost of only about 5 per cent. in excess of current bus prices. I believe that there is a message there for the Department and others: that we should make urgent progress down the road in renewing our coaches at a level that is economically viable, and which will facilitate people with disabilities.
Other anxieties have been mentioned today. In the Bill and the accompanying paper, "Disability—on the Agenda", the Government have relied on good will and on what is "reasonable" to make the legislation work. Will the Minister accept that legislation ring-fenced with exceptions is no solution? That applies to the problems with education.
I understand, for example, that in the North Antrim area where, a few years ago, there had been an increase in the number of young people being integrated into normal education, they are now being siphoned off into special care schools because the problem of access has not been properly tackled. I believe that that is contrary to the education provision. It is certainly contrary to the intentions of those of us who have campaigned for the right of people with disabilities to be integrated into mainstream education.
Among Government Departments, the Department of Health has not been a star performer in employing people with disability under the quota system. It has been recognised that the quota system failed to have an effect on discrimination against disabled people. Surely that points to the need for a foolproof system of policing the proposals.
Although I welcome the step that has been taken along the road, there remains a long way to go. If anyone says, "We have been doing the best we can," I am always mindful of the colleague with whom I was an assistant minister as a young man. On one occasion, in the General Assembly, a convenor pleaded, "We have been doing the best we can," and Dr. Martin went to the rostrum and said, "Moderator, their best is not good enough." If this is the best that the Government can do, I hope that they will hasten to marry the two Bills together, even in Committee.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on introducing the Bill. It builds on substantial work that the Government have done for disabled people for a very long time, starting long before the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was even invented.
It is worth noting that spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers has increased to £17 billion in the past year; that is almost as much as we spend on national defence. Therefore, no one could say that there is not a whole-hearted and deep commitment by the Government to support the wishes of the disabled.
Although the Opposition, by and large, have been very grudging about the Bill, I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who described the Bill as
a welcome step in the right direction".
Coming from the hon. Lady, that is significant, because she and I have not always agreed, and we shall probably disagree about many issues for some time.
None the less, I welcome a lower tone, greater calm and, on the whole, a desire by many people to ensure that the Bill can be workable. I have spoken to many disabled people who freely tell me that the Government's Bill is a good Bill and an excellent start in the process to right


many wrongs which have not been dealt with so far. As one disabled person said to me only yesterday, "It has great merits—there is no question of that."
The Bill strikes a balance between justifiable aims and what is possible in terms of provision. It is a courageous effort when we bear in mind the fact that the interests of disabled people have, in the past year, been clouded by highly charged emotion, aspirations and political activism that has tended to cause disarray and concern among disabled people. In Sutton, disabled people have been alarmed and unnecessarily frightened at the idea that we are not trying to help them.
It is significant that the Bill has been put together on the basis of extensive consultation. All told, more than 1,000 people or organisations have responded in writing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has received scores of interest groups and has travelled across the country to meet others. Above all, he has listened and taken careful note of the views of enablers—businesses, Government agencies and local government—in his efforts to improve provision for the disabled. He is, rightly, deeply conscious of the financial burden that such groups will bear. It was never realistic to expect them to finance to the tune of £17 billion the changes proposed in the private Member's Bill.
I voted for and supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Second Reading. But I did so because I supported the spirit of it. What had not been made clear at that time and only became clear afterwards was the burden of costing that outweighed the Bill's possible advantages. The Government's Bill is expected to limit the costs to about £1.5 billion, which will be phased in over 15 years. The cost to an average business could range from £500 to £1,500 over that period.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend has argued in favour of a lower tone and against political activism. Does she also agree that fair-minded analysis is important and that, as well as the cost that a measure may carry, we should also look carefully at its economic benefits?

Lady Olga Maitland: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is always important to look at both sides of the equation. I hope that, as the Bill progresses to its Committee stage, that will happen.
The greatest chance of success is to develop policies that encourage individual effort—going with the grain of the market rather than imposing untenable requirements. In my constituency, the Sutton alliance of disabled people—an energetic and articulate group—appreciates the consultations that have been held so far. I have worked closely with that group, which has given the Bill careful thought and come up with some useful ideas.
One proposal that the group could have made could be integrated at a later stage: easier access to information on where disabled people can go for support and advice. Only this evening a disabled Sutton constituent came to visit the Houses of Parliament. She had no idea whether she could park her car outside Members' Entrance. Only after extensive phone calls did she tumble to the idea of calling her Member of Parliament. We should work far harder to ensure that the disabled community understand where help can be obtained.
The Bill cannot hope to satisfy everyone—no Bill can ever do that. I am sorry that the Opposition were so grudging that they could not give the Government any credit. Why? I think that it was because the Bill does address the deep concerns of disabled people. The Bill recognises the distress, frustration and humiliation experienced by them. They should not have to tolerate being treated as third-rate citizens—as, at best, an inconvenience, or, at worst, imbeciles.
When it is clear that reliance on common decency fails, a statutory framework can undoubtedly help to remedy the wrongdoing. The Bill breaks new ground over and above the consultation document, and I shall mention three ways in which it does so.
First, our society is the poorer if able-minded but physically disabled people are unable to work because we are unimaginative about how to assimilate them into the working environment. By making it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person, we will make the employer think all the more carefully about the talents of that disabled applicant. Although the provision applies only to companies employing 20 or more people, we must remember that it will account for 82 per cent. of the businesses in this country, leaving just small and potentially vulnerable companies out of the equation.
I support the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that we should keep an open mind as to whether the 20-employee limit is appropriate. If it is not suitable, we should reduce it to a lower level and learn from the experiences of companies in Australia and New Zealand.
It is not unreasonable to expect companies to make reasonable adjustments to working conditions to facilitate disabled people. Such measures need not be draconian, and could incorporate flexible hours or merely moving a desk. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) explained so powerfully, we need more will—and where there is a will, there is always a way.
The second way in which the Bill breaks new ground involves the conciliation services. The crucial element in solving any dispute is to make full use of the locally based conciliation service—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—with the co-operation and support of the local citizens advice bureau. No one wants bureaucratic delays when confronted by a problem. People seek fast remedies and easily accessible advice and support—that aim is most effectively achieved through ACAS, whose personnel, as they are locally based, can see the employers or the providers of services immediately.
The experience of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality shows that 90 per cent. of all disagreements are settled in that way. That is not to say that someone who is dissatisfied cannot go to an industrial tribunal—that has always been an employee's right. I support the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we should reflect on whether, when a disabled person is seeking redress in that way, he should be entitled to legal aid.
The third innovative measure in the Bill is its introduction of the national disability council—an important step. As it is, no other concerned group—ethnic minorities or those seeking redress for lack of equal opportunities—has a Minister directly answerable to it. It


is significant that there is a Minister with responsibility for the disabled who provides ready access to all who need it.

Mr. Berry: I was not aware that the Bill proposed that the Minister should be answerable to disabled people. One might think that, if the Minister were answerable to them, he would introduce the Bill that disabled people want.

Lady Olga Maitland: I think that the hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs.
The Government are going one stage further by establishing the national disability council—which will act as the Minister's eyes and ears. The council will closely monitor progress on the Bill—spotting where measures need tightening up and making recommendations to the Minister. Nobody should fall between two stools, without a substantial and authoritative organisation to which he can refer.
Quite rightly, at least half the council's members will be people with disabilities, or the parents or guardians of people with disabilities. With an input from a group of people who, to date, have demonstrated their ability to articulate their concerns, I have no doubt that the council will be effective, but it might be helpful were the council also to include representatives from recognised organisations for the disabled such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Spinal Injuries Association.
Finally, I turn to the question of disabled access. Common sense must prevail; we must be reasonable about access demands on public buildings and places of employment. I welcome the focus on improved access for disabled people at railway stations. It is certainly good news for commuters in my constituency who have a choice of nine railway stations, all of which have access problems. By seeking reasonable changes there is more chance of immediate redress. For example, a restaurant could be required to designate a table with sufficient space for disabled people. A tiny corner shop would be within the law if it installed a bell outside which disabled people could ring in order to be served.
The Bill will make it illegal to refuse to serve disabled customers. Making it easier for disabled people to shop can only be good for retailers who will benefit from the increased custom. That has been the experience in Sutton, where there are extensive high street facilities for the disabled, including wheelchair access.
I commend the determination of the Government in promoting the Bill and I particularly congratulate the Prime Minister on taking such a personal interest in it. We must ensure that the Bill promotes action which is practical, workable, enforceable and fair for all. I reject the Opposition amendment and I will have great pleasure in supporting the Government in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Harry Barnes: When I reintroduce the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 10 February, I shall have the chance to make a substantial speech on this subject. On that occasion I hope to gain support for the Bill in order to secure its Second Reading. I wish to direct my remarks tonight to the current legislation and I shall advocate my own measure on 10 February.
Of Conservative Members who have spoken, I compliment the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his speech. Although there are serious tactical differences between us about how to vote tonight, his arguments are based solidly upon experience, upon a clear analysis of the situation and, above all, upon the correct principles. I could argue that he is rather naive in supporting the Government's position rather than the reasoned amendment, but I respect that judgment because I respect the person who made it.
I trust that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will explain to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has just spoken, why the Government's legislation is inadequate. Society does not want to see provision for bells outside shops, which will reinforce the idea that disabled people have special problems and should be treated differently. Disabled people should have easy access to all public buildings, as well as benefiting from the measures that are in the Bill that the hon. Lady supports.
I feel entirely justified in my decision to select the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill as a private Member's Bill. I could have had egg on my face, as the Queen's Speech foreshadowed that the Government intended to introduce their own Bill in this area. However, I based my judgment upon the fact that the Government were not likely to introduce adequate legislation. Although it is an advance for the Government to introduce any legislation at all in this area, I believed that the Government's measure would block off further advancement by disabled people rather than extend the opportunities that are demanded.
That is what has occurred. This Bill is entirely inadequate. The long titles of the two Bills describe the scope of each piece of legislation. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will allow amendments to be made that will extend the boundaries of that legislation. That scope is not contained in the Government's Bill. In fact, such measures are specifically limited and blocked. In order to carry amendments to the Government Bill in Committee, hon. Members will have to make amendments to the long title of the Bill and change the nature of the legislation. In effect, we shall have to change chalk into cheese. We shall have to make fantastic alterations to the legislation. The council will have to he changed to a commission and the definition in the Bill will have to be based on entirely different principles.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is not my Bill; it is not a Bill to which any one person can lay claim. It has evolved from a movement in society. I am merely taking up the baton that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) carried last year. I have picked it up because I believe that the measure is right for this time.
I introduced a different measure two years ago dealing with electoral registration. That subject is very dear to my heart and it would have been easy to reintroduce it and carry on the campaign with which I have been involved. However, that argument is still developing; it needs to be extended and it needs to receive more publicity—its time will come. The time has come for extensive and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Such rights should not be constrained by the very limited and often contradictory measures in the Government's legislation.
When the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People introduced the Bill on behalf of the Government, I said that I would introduce the Civil Rights (Disabled


Persons) Bill unless someone else picked it up before me. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) did not pick it up, given his experience in the area of disability. He has now said that the Government measure can be altered and advanced and that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is in some way counter-productive.
If the Opposition's reasoned amendment is not carried tonight and if progress is made with the Government Bill, the private Member's Bill that I propose to introduce on 10 February will put continuous pressure on the Government. It is the marker against which the Government Bill will be judged.
I recognise that this legislation represents a big step by the Government; they have crossed the Rubicon by contemplating and producing legislation about disablement. The problem is that it is a very small step for disabled people. It will not get them anywhere; it will barely take them past the Rubicon—in fact, the Bill's provisions may push them backwards.
Conservative Members are faced with a dilemma. Can the Government Bill be amended to operate in some meaningful way, or should the all-embracing measure of civil rights for disabled people be placed on the political agenda? They could then seek to offer amendments within the spirit of the legislation that is put forward.
The problems with the Government Bill have been described in considerable detail by Opposition Members. The most highly restrictive definition of disablement is set out in part I and schedule 1 of the Bill. The figures in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill relating to the numbers of people involved have never been disputed and were used in connection with cost assessment. It was a false assessment, but it was based on the same numbers of people.
It has always been estimated that 6.5 million people would be covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Can the Minister tell us how many people will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill as it stands?
We have heard about all the interest groups that are worried about being excluded. They have been quoted by hon. Members representing four political parties who have raised important issues. The Bill refers to those with substantial disabilities and those with long-term disabilities and states that the categories involved will be decided and explained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Do we trust the Secretary of State to provide the broadest possible definitions? We may finish up with an extremely limited measure.
I hope that, before we vote on the Bill, we shall be told what number the Government believe it will cover, compared with the 6.5 million covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It is possible that the Minister could help us now by giving that figure, which it seems to me is a crucial figure, not just for the purposes of my hon. Friend's argument, but in terms of the whole debate about the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: The Minister certainly has plenty of assistance and it must be possible that the figures have been calculated somewhere within the civil service and that there could be at least a rough and ready addition to enlighten the House.
It is possible to argue that the definition in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is very wide and is in danger of becoming almost too wide. On the other hand, it has been argued that the definitions and provisions in the current Bill could lead to problems concerning litigation.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill needs almost no definition apart from the word "disabled". It provides that the argument that someone is disabled cannot be used by an employer, a provider of services or someone providing access to a building and that no one should be able to say, "No, you cannot come here or do this because you are disabled." Therefore, the word needs to be interpreted very broadly indeed.
People can be disabled in many ways and the eye of the beholder who is doing the discrimination needs to be taken into account. Some people are clearly disabled, such as those suffering from various chronic illnesses and those with mental impairments, and they are mentioned in one of the schedules to the Bill. The definition is so restricted, however, that what occurs is something of an obscenity—exceptions are included to further limit the definition.
Having defined certain people who are to be considered disabled, the Bill exempts certain circumstances. Restrictions on the scope of the Bill are then built into existing restrictions, reducing still further what it covers. The figures, therefore, do not need simply to say how many people would qualify under the definition; one has then to subtract the number exempted under clause 5, which lists the circumstances in which less favoured treatment is permitted.
Some of the language in the Bill is most unfortunate. It states that
less favoured treatment is justified
and details circumstances in which people can get away with unacceptable behaviour.
It has already been mentioned that, on the role of employers, the opinion of the employer appears to matter most. When a case goes to court or to an industrial tribunal, what is being judged is the opinion of the employer. If the opinion of the employer is genuinely that the case did not involve a category covered by the measure, the measure will not be able to be produced in law, even if services are available to help people who go to industrial tribunals, thereby facing the considerable financial difficulties that were discussed earlier.
A whole range of issues has been raised by hon. Members, including the Bill not applying to workplaces with fewer than 20 workers. Those companies are not necessarily financially strapped and unable to make provision for disabled people. In the new computer age, a small employer can often make considerable profits, but profitability is not a consideration. As has already been pointed out, the Minister can not only reduce the figure, but can increase the figure when pressures are applied by industry, and the legislation is no longer being discussed in the House and the subject is no longer of prime consideration.
We have had considerable discussion of the problems in transport and education. Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 12 explain all the sectors of education, under different funding regimes, to which the legislation will not apply. It is part of the list of exemptions. Surely we should know what in education is not covered by the exemptions.


Are there forms of education—private or state—where the law will have to apply? Is there any reason why we are given a list of exemptions?
Clause 12(3)(f) says:
the services of any profession or trade, or local or other public authority
are covered by the Bill. Why does it not say "except education", thus ruling out the need for another half page? There must be something in education to which the measure applies, so may we have the details before we consider the Bill on Report as to what that something is? Otherwise, we shall be legislating blindly.
The Bill as it stands does not apply to Northern Ireland although we have been told that an adjustment will be made, and of course we believe that that will take place. In a meaningful contribution, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out that the number of small firms operating in Northern Ireland is greater than anywhere else within the United Kingdom, so more people are being excluded in Northern Ireland. At least hon. Members representing Northern Ireland will now have the opportunity to table amendments and argue their case in Committee—if they are on that Committee—and on Report, to defend their interests and to join the rest of us in improving the Bill.
When I submitted the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I took the precaution of seeking support from all parts of the House. In the rush, I did not manage to persuade a Conservative Member who took the Whip, but I do have the support of one who does not have the Whip. I have the support also of hon. Members from eight other political parties, including all four Northern Ireland parties. They are often at loggerheads in the House in respect of Northern Ireland issues, but are united on civil rights for disabled people.
I subsequently secured the approval of three other Northern Ireland political parties outside the House. I await responses from Sinn Fein and two Protestant parties more closely associated with paramilitary groups. There might be some embarrassment about them saying that they support civil rights for disabled people, because in the past, such groups have been associated with forms of militarism that created much disablement.
However, if one gets away from constitutional and border issues in Northern Ireland, it is amazing how much across-the-board support there is for worthwhile issues—and nothing could be more basic than my Bill. For example, there was unanimity—other than the small Conservative party that exists in Northern Ireland—in opposing the student loans system, from Democratic Unionists to Sinn Fein.
Last year, the Government talked out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. This year, their tactic is that such a Bill would not work, or would cause considerable political damage. They have jumped ahead of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and are seeking to persuade the public, by capturing some of its language, that they are following its principles.
The Government produced a White Paper that was available in the Vote Office at 12 o'clock a week last Thursday, and the Government Bill was given its First Reading at 4.15 pm the same day. How much consultation could be undertaken in four and a quarter hours on a Bill already in the Vote Office and waiting to be distributed? The White Paper was about news management. It was

produced in the hope that the media would concentrate on its content rather than examine the Bill—and it needs examining.
One must question also the Government Bill's implementation. The beauty of a disability rights commission is that it would provide a mechanism to advance the rights conferred by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There will be various defences of reasonableness in different firms, so initial protection might not be as great as it could be. However, the commission would act in a dynamic fashion, so that the boundaries of discrimination would be pushed back further and further.
The council established by the Government Bill to advise the Secretary of State would in no way be equivalent to the commission, 75 per cent. of whose members would be disabled or associated with disabled organisations. The commission would submit codes of practice for the House to consider and to be transferred to the Secretary of State, but under the Government Bill, the House would have to consider codes of practice presented by the Secretary of State. The commission would be served by persons independent of the Department, who would present their considered opinions, on which the House could then decide. The House might even refer matters back to the commission if it did not seem to be moving in the right direction. That arrangement would help alert the House to what should be happening.
The commission would be the conciliating and service body for disabled people taking on the law. I do not trust a Secretary of State in a Conservative Government to do anything to advance the interests of disabled people. Despite the kind words said about the current Minister, who is quite a pleasant fellow, and about his predecessor, the Minister is controlled by the Secretary of State. The record of the current Secretary of State for Social Security does nothing for Opposition Members, and must strike the fear of God into some Conservative Members.
Instead of plodding ahead with the limiting and restrictive Government Bill, I hope that the House will support the reasoned amendment, which would replace it with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who has just returned to her place, recently tabled two written questions. She asked whether the Secretary of State will
produce a copy of the Disability Discrimination Bill using pictures and simple text to make it available to people with learning difficulties."—[Official Report,20 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 754.]
The Minister answered that the Department would put some stuff on audio cassette and that a simplified written version was available. That version is not for people with learning difficulties, and work must be done on that.
If the Bill is meant to apply, albeit inadequately, to people with learning difficulties, they should have some access to its content and the ability to make judgments, so that they may put pressure on their elected representatives to defend their interests.

Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government acknowledge that, of the £1 million spent on advertising their efforts in this area, only £2,000 has been


spent on producing material in Braille and on audio cassette? Does he agree that that speaks volumes about the nature of the Government's commitment?

Mr. Barnes: That just serves to illustrate my point.
The second question asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale concerned the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. She asked whether copies of the Bill using pictures and simple text would be provided for people with learning difficulties. The answer amounted to, "That's up to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East." The Government would offer no assistance.
Any hon. Member who is lucky in the ballot can draw £200 for legal advice when drafting his Bill. I ask the House to imagine how far £200 will go to procure legal advice. If the amount had been updated in line with inflation, it would now be worth more than £1,400. Meanwhile, hon. Members are given no real assistance to produce a text in the required form.
Luckily, however, there are people who are organised and who are doing the job. Simone Aspis, of the organisation People First, has produced a draft document on the Bill in just the form required. If People First, with its limited resources, can produce such a document, why cannot the Government? I am proud to see that ours is the first Bill that the organisation has ever produced in that way, although it has done other similar documents. The Government should think again about the assistance that should be given to hon. Members to introduce Bills connected with disability. People First could do with some more resources from public funds to carry out more work of that nature.
It is vital that we get the principles right, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand them. A Conservative Member said earlier that he was on the same wavelength as us even though he might vote differently—

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point about some severely disabled people. The early-day motion on this subject is widely supported; its message is that, unless we improve communication with severely disabled people, they are not just second-class citizens—they are non-people. As my hon. Friend will know, Simone Aspis has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the attention of Members on both sides of the House. Will my hon. Friend accept that there are people in all parts of the House who strongly endorse what he is saying now?

Mr. Barnes: It is indeed an important early-day motion, and Simone Aspis's organisation is important, too. Although I am not supposed to mention this, I might add that she has been the only person to stay in the Gallery throughout the debate today.
We shall return to the debate on 10 February. I hope that all Members present for this debate and voting tonight will he here again then. I hope that people outside will continue to apply pressure to their Members of Parliament, asking them to come along and support our Bill. It is not my Bill, but I have picked it up and I am running with it. This is my chance to get it passed; we must get it through on this occasion.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to speak in this debate after my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I face the disadvantage, speaking so late, that it will be difficult for me not to repeat much of what has been said—but I shall try to avoid doing so.
I want to concentrate on the definition of rights, the costs of the Bill and its enforcement. Like a number of other Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) suggested that Opposition Members are being churlish, in that we should recognise that the Bill is a step in the right direction. We might have acknowledged that had we not known for a long time that something much better was on offer. There is already a much better Bill that could take the place of this one.
I deal first with definition and who is covered. It has been said that the definition is inadequate, that it is narrower than it should be, and that it is a negative definition that leaves out people with a "history or reputation" of disability—the terms that are used in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. As an example, I refer to people with HIV and AIDS. Clearly, there will be people, particularly some employers, who will treat people who are HIV positive or who have AIDS as disabled. They will discriminate against them. The definition in the Bill may well cover some people—most probably people in the advanced stages of AIDS who may be suffering physical impairment. The irony is that such people are least likely to seek employment and benefit from the Bill's provisions.
It is much more likely that people with HIV will be discriminated against, because an employer will perceive it as a disability. The issue of perception is important. The way in which people are perceived impacts on the way in which they are treated. If an employer perceives a disability that he or she believes will increase costs or reduce efficiency, they are likely to act on that perception. The person who is discriminated against will have no remedy through the provisions of the Bill as it stands.
Reputation is important. The sort of provision that was covered in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and which is covered in other countries, for example, the United States and Australia, protects the individual. The issue becomes not, for example, whether a person has HIV, but rather whether they are being discriminated against because an employer believes that that person has HIV. That is what happens. That person's HIV status does not even have to be proved or disclosed. It is the fact that they have been discriminated against that matters.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Why does my hon. Friend think that the Government have specifically excluded the people, the victims of discrimination, to whom he has referred?

Mr. Gerrard: What we are up against are the costs of a full definition and full civil rights—to which I was going to refer later—and what the Government believe, falsely, those costs would be. I will return to that point later.
In opening the debate, the Minister referred to discussions that the Government will have with the insurance industry. I very much hope that HIV will be raised, because clearly it is an area in which the insurance industry discriminates at present.
I have used HIV as an example, but I am sure that many other people will recognise that similar problems apply to many other conditions. Obvious examples are people with epilepsy, which may in some cases have a serious effect on their physical abilities, but which in other cases is quite trivial and has no relationship to that person's ability to do a particular job.
The matter of rights that are established has been frequently referred to and I do not want to repeat what has been said, with the exception of one point on employment—that the majority of employers will not be covered because of the limitation on the number of employees to 20.
In the US, the limit is 15, but the interesting point about its approach is that, under US legislation, the number starts at 25, with an automatic reduction to 15 after two years. In the US, the approach was quite clear from the beginning. The intention was to bring the number down. As a number of hon. Members said earlier this evening, many of us would prefer an approach that did not depend on a number. Many hon. Members have said that we should not exempt anybody. It would be useful if the Minister explained just how the Government intend to use the provision in the Bill that allows the number to be changed, because as it stands, it can be used to go either way—up or down. That is a significant difference from the approach that was taken in the US.
As has been said, we will have two classes of disabled employee; some who are protected and some who are not. The gaps in the definition and the failure to go for a full civil rights approach are due to costs. The Government talk about the cost of implementing the legislation from the point of view of compliance. That is one side of the equation. But nothing is said about the cost of not implementing sufficiently tough legislation.
The position on costs is summed up in the preamble to the American legislation, which says:
The continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis, and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity.
In other words, there should be a rounded look at the whole economic picture.
Compare that with the British Government's attitude, looking at one side of the equation, setting a limit of 20 or more employees, and their failure to accept a full definition and full civil rights. They look at only one side of the cost equation.
I come now to enforcement which, in some ways, is the most disappointing part of the Bill. It is not as if we have not had experience in Britain and elsewhere of constructing legislation to deal with discrimination in order to ensure that people have rights that can be enforced. But the Bill provides a dreadfully weak enforcement mechanism. Individuals will be left to try to fight their way through the legal system alone without legal aid and with no real help.
Compare this Bill with other attempts to prevent discrimination. I am most familiar with race discrimination and the work of the Commission on Racial Equality. The CRE can help individuals to deal with their own cases, but it has other powers as well, such as the power to take investigative action independent of an

individual's complaint, to establish good practice, to make findings against organisations, public and private, and to take class actions.
I do not pretend that there are not still problems with the way in which that system operates. The CRE does not fight enough industrial tribunal cases, and it can deal with only a few high-profile cases. But that approach and its successes are lessons from which we should learn. The lesson is clear: we need a disability rights commission which can help individuals to initiate cases and obtain legal aid where necessary.
We are told that an individual will be able to go to an industrial tribunal, but that is not easy. Industrial tribunals—perhaps we should consider this in a wider sense—have become the province of lawyers in a way that was never envisaged when they were first established. Now, large organisations brief QCs to defend them at an industrial tribunal. That is not the way that industrial tribunals were originally expected to work. There is no question but that it puts individuals, particularly individuals without an organisation behind them, at a significant disadvantage. Moreoever, the system is already overloaded, with long waits for hearings.
It is also particularly difficult now for individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against when applying for employment to work through the industrial tribunal system. They are least likely to have the support of an organisation such as a trade union. The key point is that help should be available. There is no point in providing a remedy and then ensuring that some people will not be able to use that remedy because no mechanism exists to help them to do so.
We need a commission with investigative powers to take general cases. It should not only monitor discrimination, but uncover it. None of us should be under any illusions that it will be easy to remove discrimination, both direct and indirect, against people with disabilities. The Bill and the Government's approach fail to recognise the full effects of indirect discrimination. From experience of racial discrimination, we know that institutionalised discrimination is the most difficult to tackle, especially on the basis of individual cases or claims. That is why one needs a commission that can investigate, and people who can take class actions. We should not rely all the time on one individual trying to fight his way through the system on his own.
It is far too easy for us to assume that, because of the number of people who are prepared perhaps to stand up publicly and to make aggressive, abusive or hostile remarks about disabled people, such deep-seated prejudice does not exist. It is clear that prejudice exists against people with HIV, and that is mot the only example that one could quote. The evidence still exists that there is systematic prejudice and discrimination.
There have been improvements in the past 15 years, but the majority of those improvements have occurred simply through disabled people and organisations for the disabled fighting for their rights. Discrimination will not disappear. Things will not improve just through persuasion. Certainly, we need education, but that on its own will not be enough; nor will legislation that is not enforced. That is the message that we receive from tackling other areas of discrimination and from other countries.
In the autumn, I was in Washington and I took the opportunity to visit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I specifically asked about its experiences in


the past two years of implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Its view was that there had been some problems in getting started and that it was early days. Essentially, however, it had a very positive view of the Act's effect.
That Act is not enforced through vague rights that individuals are left to enforce on their own. It is enforced through duties on the commission, on the Attorney General, and on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. That is a recognition of the power that Governments can have in using their economic spending to influence the private sector. I know that contract compliance is the last thing that would be popular with the Government, but that sort of approach has been recognised by Governments in other countries as being valuable and as making a difference.
If we are serious about anti-discrimination legislation, we are required to be serious about its enforcement. Yes, we have to change attitudes and challenge prejudices. One does not do everything through legislation; an educative process is needed. It is certain, however, that without adequate enforcement, the provisions will fail.

Mr. Robin Corbett: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has consistently supported and worked strongly on behalf of people with disabilities. He was the 17th Back Bencher to make a speech in the debate today. I am glad that the Leader of the House is here, although I am not supposed to see that. It is a great shame that people with disabilities who need to use wheelchairs have no access to the Galleries of the House, and that they must sit on the outside of those Galleries. I hope that that matter can be quickly put right.
In a curious way, there has been consensus in the debate: even those who spoke in favour of the Bill went on to criticise some or all of the inadequacies highlighted by our reasoned amendment. I suppose that that was to be expected, but I hope that it will be taken on board by, in particular, the Minister—whose responsibilities are new to him—because there has not been unqualified support for what he and the Government propose.
I especially commend the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—who fought such a valiant and skilful battle in the last Session, in the face of Government skulduggery, to put his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on the statute book—and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has now taken up the torch and will exhibit equal determination and tenacity in his efforts to do more to meet the demands of people with disabilities.
In the run-up to the Bill, the Minister and his officials told organisations of and for disabled people and their carers and families that, following the Government's consultation paper, all the issues were up for discussion. Some felt that, on that basis, there was no need for the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood: if need be, parts of his Bill could be transferred to the Government measure in the form of amendments. They now know better.
The Government's words were an attempt to throw dust in the people's eyes after their shameful behaviour over the Bill presented in the last Session. The issues are not,

and never were, "all up for discussion"; the best that was up for discussion was contained in the long title of the Government's Bill, which—as several speakers have pointed out today—was restrictively drawn.
The Bill is nowhere near comprehensive enough, and its limited scope rules out areas in which organisations of and for disabled people and their carers demand and deserve action. I may say to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)—and to others who, with less charm, chided us for tabling our reasoned amendment—that it is not our fault that there was no co-operation over the Government measure; the Opposition have co-operated for 13 years, and we still have no legislation guaranteeing civil rights for disabled people.
Had the Government wished to proceed on the basis of consultation, they could have consulted us—and every other party represented on either side of the House—to try to achieve the consensus of which the hon. Lady spoke. I acknowledge immediately that the 6.5 million people with disabilities outside the House, their families and their carers would have preferred us to proceed on that basis, but it was not the Opposition but the Government who chose not to make that possible.
The Bill is, of course, a timorous step forward, but we invite the House to deny it a Second Reading so that the Government can do better, perhaps by taking over the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. As has been said—none of this is new—the Bill is inadequate: its definition of disability is restrictive and exclusive, and it fails to tackle the vital question of access to education for people with learning difficulties.
It excludes firms with fewer than 20 employees from anti-discrimination protection, and provides no timetables for the removal of that phoney threshold. The Bill also does nothing to help people on to buses and trains, although the places from which they leave are covered. It is silent on any financial help to employers to take on people with disabilities, or to help speed access to buildings offering services. It lacks any real attempt to co-ordinate enforcement and to help spread good practice.
I wish to mention six good reasons why the House should not accept the Bill, but there are others which other hon. Members have mentioned.

Mr. Thurnham: Shame.

Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will understand the sense of what has been said from all around the Chamber today about the illogical and silly way in which the Government have tried to help people with disabilities.
I want to go through the' six reasons quickly. The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People—Jane Campbell of the council has been watching our proceedings all day—complained that the definition of disability is based on the medical model. That would exclude elderly disabled people who do not suffer from what the Bill labels "a disease", people with a disease such as multiple sclerosis who are not prevented from carrying on most tasks but who might—in employment—be considered unfit for work, and people with HIV who experience some of the most severe forms of discrimination.
I will give the House an example of the narrow and flawed thinking of the Government. Clause 14, about which Mencap is concerned, deals with the circumstances


in which the Government say that it is all right to discriminate—for instance, under subsection (3), because a disabled person
is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or of giving an informed consent".

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): indicated assent

Mr. Corbett: The Minister agrees. If she will wait, she can comment when she winds up.
Mencap believes that that measure alone could deny about 250,000 people their right to equal access. Mencap cites the examples of people wanting to open a bank account, needing medical or dental treatment, wanting to make rental agreements or even wanting to take out council house tenancies. What is the intention there? Whom is the measure supposed to cover? Surely the people who meet the definition in the Bill are likely to be looked after already by the court of protection.

Miss Widdecombe: Exactly.

Mr. Corbett: I am glad to hear that. If they are protected, does not the measure simply widen the grounds on which it remains lawful to discriminate?
I remind Ministers that in any event the Law Commission is due to report in March on the whole issue of capacity and decision making. I would like the Minister today at least to undertake that she will consider the recommendations of the Law Commission as the Bill proceeds, and that she will consider tabling amendments here or in another place to implement those which impact on the Bill.
Perhaps the greatest hole in the Bill—I believe that it is of great significance, and many of my hon. Friends have also spoken about it—is its failure properly to tackle discrimination in education. Barnardo's says:
The quality of education provision disabled children receive, will play a major part in their subsequent integration into adult life".
The Bill simply ignores that. Important as trying to meet the needs of people with disabilities or special learning needs in the short term is, we must also try to help to prepare people with a range of disabilities for integration into adult life. Barnardo's adds something which we all know from constituency cases:
The present system still discriminates against disabled people and young children because parents cannot choose a mainstream school on the same basis as other parents.
In the city of Birmingham, only two secondary schools—one to the north and one to the south of the city—have the necessary facilities for young people with disabilities. I have a young constituent who has been well served by Great Barr primary school, which is situated just outside my constituency. The school was recently praised by the schools inspectorate for the quality of education it provides. They engaged in correspondence—I almost said a battle—lasting several months with Birmingham education department because they rightly insisted on a choice of secondary education for their daughter. Like all other parents, they were invited to state their preference, but the school they chose did not have the facilities to take the child. The upshot is that, to find a school that best suits and meets her needs, she has to be transported to the other side of the city.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The Opposition spokesman should not place 100 per cent. reliance on mainstream

schooling for people with difficulties. I am a governor of the Mary Hare grammar school for the deaf—the only grammar school for the deaf in the United Kingdom—and what it offers is unbeatable anywhere.

Mr. Corbett: I take the hon. Lady's point and I did not mean to be dogmatic, but if parents want to choose mainstream education for children, they should have that right; they should not be turned down because the facilities do not exist. Many special schools do a magnificent job—some of those in the city of Birmingham are known to me and I try to be supportive of them.
One primary school in my constituency which copes with children with disabilities decided to pal up with a school a few miles up the road whose pupils are not disabled. For the past two years, pupils from the two schools have gone away together for a week to a camp in the countryside on the edge of Birmingham. The resulting learning and understanding, among both groups of children and the very committed and devoted teachers, is magnificent. That is exactly the sort of work that the Minister and his right hon. Friends at the Department of Education and Science should encourage.

Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that children with disabilities should have the opportunity to profit from an education with mainstream pupils and to share their experiences if that is good for them? As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, however, in many cases segregated provision is best, and both options should be available.

Mr. Corbett: Exactly, and the present Government of all Governments should not need any lectures from the Opposition about parental choice, because they said that they were introducing it. The Bill does nothing to improve parental choice for parents whose children have disabilities. Some promises were made—restated wishes from the Education Act 1993—but that is beside the point. Two out of every three primary schools and more than half the secondary schools in England and Wales have no suitably adapted lavatories. Moreover, I cannot be the only hon. Member with primary schools that still have outside toilets— or can I? [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Clearly, I am not.
The denial of mainstream education further isolates young people with disabilities because it shields those without them from the experience of being alongside children with different abilities. What is more, as Scope says, the White Paper simply restates the provisions of the 1993 Act for an accessibility audit; there is nothing new in that.
On work, the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees and the absence of a phased removal of that threshold are unacceptable. The Government know that 96 out of every 100 firms employ fewer than 20 people. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, in rural areas small businesses are the main providers of job opportunities for everyone, including people with disabilities. The Government know that that sector offers the best growth in jobs and that six out of 10 companies with up to 10 staff already have one disabled person working for them. So what is the problem?
The Government also know that the Confederation of British Industry and the Employers Forum on Disability do not want a cut-off. Under the present Prime Minister—and, indeed, the previous one—have run around telling us


that it is not their job to run business, so why in heaven's name do not they let business get on with the job that it says it wants to do? They are stopping business doing the job that it wants to do.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, 91 per cent. of the employers who responded to the Government's consultation paper rejected the idea of a cut-off point for firms with 20 or fewer employees.

Miss Widdecombe: The figure of 91 per cent. is accurate. Will the hon. Gentleman now confirm that the number of employers responding was 11?

Mr. Corbett: No.
I will now show what can happen at work and describe the experience of a former press operator at the Leyland DAF plant at Washwood Heath in Birmingham. That man lost three fingers at work but was still regarded as a valued and productive employee. Then he was made redundant. He applied for a similar job with a small car component firm and was invited for interview. All went well until he mentioned that he had lost three fingers. From then on, the prospective employer did not want to know. That man could not be refused a job on grounds of his race or gender because that would be against the law, but the Bill would not stop him being refused a job on the ground of his disability. He said:
I didn't think of myself as being disabled until I was discriminated against.
How can the Government say—quite rightly—that they will not tolerate discrimination on grounds of race and gender but then tell 96 out of every 100 firms that it is all right to discriminate on grounds of disability?Lawyers will have a field day if the Bill reaches the statute book. If a disabled job applicant happens also to be gay or lesbian and from an ethnic community, the lawyers could keep the case running into thousands of pounds.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend referred earlier to Jane Campbell of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, who is highly regarded in this House. How can the Government pretend to correct Jane on this issue? She is a severely disabled person and she knows the realities of disabled living. She knows what she is talking about in defining disability. How can they say that they know more than Jane?

Mr. Corbett: My right hon. Friend makes an exceptionally good point. I applaud the fact that the Government decided to carry out a consultation. The only trouble with consultation is that it implies that one will listen and, where one feels it right to do so, respond to what is said. All the evidence, even in the document that the Minister has now published, is that the Government have taken little notice of what people said because they do not like it.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the House should show some humility. The best people to tell us about discrimination against disabled people are those who suffer from that discrimination, who face it every day of the week and who come to anticipate it because of what happens in our society.
As other hon. Members have mentioned transport, I will omit that issue in view of the lack of time available.
The Bill is silent on financial encouragement for employers or owners of shops or other commercial properties to improve access. For example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind wants the national insurance contributions holiday for employers who take on the long-term jobless extended to employers who take on disabled people. Why not? What about tax relief on spending to assist the employment of disabled people? If people can apply for grants of up to £20,000 to improve their homes, why cannot some modest help be offered, perhaps on a pound-for-pound basis, to small retailers and others who need to make their premises accessible to disabled people?
Perhaps the biggest weakness of the Bill is the total absence of a proposal to set up an organisation with responsibility for enforcement, to develop case studies and practice, as well as to encourage and spread good practice. Virtually every organisation of the disabled and for the disabled that has commented on the Bill has made that point, but again, the Government have ignored it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, it is pretty rich for the Government to indulge in a consultation exercise, spend a million quid boasting about it and then spend just £2,000 on putting out versions on audio and in Braille. The very people from whom we desperately need to hear, so that we have a better chance of getting the legislation right, are effectively locked out of the debate.
I commend especially to the Minister for the Disabled the excellent booklet published by People First, which states:
People with learning difficulties had found it impossible to understand and comment on the Government Disability Discrimination Bill because the summary ….was not written using pictures and simple text.
I wish we could use video screens in the Chamber, but we have not come to that yet. I commend that booklet to the Minister. There would be no need to employ civil servants to produce the Government's own version, as I am sure that People First would make it available to the Minister, his Department and others at a reasonable cost.
We should have the humility to accept that the best people to talk about discrimination are those who know about it, meet it and are offended by it because they are denied the same rights as other citizens. The Government must understand that calls to end discrimination against people with disabilities are not about services and benefits, important as they are, but about civil rights—rights equal to those that the rest of us are able to claim and exercise.
To deny the Bill a Second Reading today will not rob disabled people of their rights because the Government can take over the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill after they help it to secure its Second Reading on 10 February.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): This has been a constructive and sensible debate, with many useful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I echo the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for the huge amount of work that he did to support the work to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the current Minister for


Social Security and Disabled People on producing an excellent Bill and on the huge amount of work and consultation which went into it.
With one or two exceptions, the tone of the debate has been entirely reasoned. Many points were raised and, for that reason, I may not be able to respond to all of them tonight. I should like, first, to address the reasoned amendment.
To echo the wise words of my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), we have a choice: either we can accept a Bill which has been introduced by the Government and which, amended or otherwise, will reach the statute book, or we can reject it. If we do that, we will for ever after have to explain why, when we had the chance to get an anti-discrimination measure on the statute book—we will not be able to accept the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—we turned it down. That is the question that faces hon. Members tonight.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that she would vote for the reasoned amendment because there was nothing in it with which she could disagree, but she must remind herself that if she does that, the Disability Discrimination Bill will be rejected. That could easily result in no anti-discrimination measure being on the statute book. I am talking straightforward fact. If hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time, and who know the workings of the system, do not understand the logic of that, I am unable to assist hon. Members further.
Secondly, I believe that much of what is in the reasoned amendment either is inaccurate or refers to matters that are being addressed. For example, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said clearly that we shall now consider the possibility—and, if possible, enact legislation to that effect—of making it unlawful to discriminate in the sale and letting of premises.
It is also said in the reasoned amendment that the Bill is unacceptable because its employment provisions would extend to less than—

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Lady has said that the reasoned amendment is inaccurate. She then referred to the Bill, but there is no reference in it whatever to premises in the way in which the Minister discussed them in his speech. Will she therefore withdraw what she said, because it is she who is being wholly inaccurate?

Miss Widdecombe: With respect, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that there is much in the reasoned amendment that either is inaccurate or refers to measures that have been addressed. When I spoke about measures that have been addressed, I meant the unlawful discrimination in the sale and letting of premises, which was discussed by my hon. Friend in his opening speech. [Interruption.] I shall proceed, because I assume that the reason that hon. Members have made so many arguments tonight is that they wish to hear answers. I suggest that we make some progress on that.
The reasoned amendment claims that our Bill is unacceptable because the employment provisions extend only to less than 5 per cent. of firms. Although, strictly, technically, statistically, that may be true, the reasoned amendment conjures up a wildly inaccurate picture of the

vast majority of the work force not being covered, whereas the exact opposite is true; 83 per cent. of employees will be covered.
It does not follow that, just because a small firm is exempt, it will make a practice of discrimination. It simply means that we have recognised that there are burdens on businesses that it is not sensible to inflict on very small businesses. However, we have also said more than.once tonight that, although we have written into the Bill the dividing line of 20 employees, we are taking a power to amend that in the light of experience.
We were asked from the Opposition Benc  we could amend that to a larger number as well as a smaller number, but that is certainly not the intention of that power. There would have to be some mighty compelling evidence and some consultation as well. The idea is to find out, in time to come, whether experience shows that we could decrease that number, but we are starting with what we consider to be a reasonable number.
I am sorry to take issue again with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), because he has quite a reputation on that issue and I honestly thought that he would have read the consultation document extremely thoroughly. I must take issue with him when he says that 91 per cent. of employers oppose an exemption. When it comes down to 11 employers, 10 of whom oppose an exemption, that does not describe the opinions of employers. He omitted to add that, of the employer associations that were actually consulted, six out of nine supported an exemption.

Mr. Berry: I was absolutely correct when I said that, of the employers who responded, 91 per cent. opposed an exemption. That was 10 out of 11 who offered an opinion. Will the hon. Lady admit that, of all the employers who were consulted and who responded, only one—the one that she has mentioned—actually wanted an exemption for small firms? I am grateful that she has strengthened the argument that I was trying to make.

Miss Widdecombe: Now will the hon. Gentleman please tell me how many of the remaining 10 employers were small ones? I think that he will probably be unable to do so.
I shall now proceed to make progress.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall not give way now. I intend to make progress. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I have given way to the hon. Member for Kingswood; I shall give way on sensible points, but I want to make progress.
Much has been made of our decision to set up a.national disability council rather than a commission. There appears to be some received wisdom that, just because 20 years ago a Labour Government decided that the best way of monitoring and policing equal rights was to set up commissions, that was the only way it could be done. I invite hon. Members to compare the two very different tasks faced by commissions and the council.
The Equal Opportunities Commission represents 50 per cent. of the population and is largely engaged in class actions. The number of individual cases that it supports before tribunals amounts to a minority. The work entailed by the disability laws will largely involve individuals—no two of whom will be the same—coming before tribunals.
I noted the call from the Labour Front-Bench team earlier to introduce legal aid in tribunals. In his response to an intervention, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) seemed to commit a future Labour Government—hypothetical, of course—to introducing legal aid. I hope that he has consulted the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer on the likely cost of that policy.

Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the next Government, but I want to be particularly clear about the present Government's view. In my speech, I mentioned a boy who suffers from cerebral palsy and who has taken a case of unfair dismissal to a tribunal. That tribunal has been suspended today because his family does not have the money for further representation. What advice would the Minister give that family tonight?

Mr. Dennis Turner: A good question—answer it.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall. I would say to that family—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Monklands, West has not already done so—that tribunals are specifically designed to be user-friendly, cheap and informal. The majority of successful cases before tribunals are those where there is no representation.
The Education Act 1993 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 set out extremely clear provisions for disabled pupils and students. We have already said many times during the debate that the Department for Education is carrying out an audit of accessibility to establish the current position on access within schools, but the majority of schoolchildren with special educational needs are already in mainstream schools and there has been a vast increase in the percentage of children with statements, right across the age range, who are now taught in mainstream schools. With due respect to the hon. Members who were concerned about the issue, the Government are ahead in their thinking and are already beginning to take action of the sort that we have been asked to follow.
Of course, education will be caught by the conditions imposed on employers in the Bill. Schools will have to observe non-discriminatory practices in employment, and vocational training—which is provided under the Employment and Training Act 1973—will be covered by the Bill. We are left with schools which are already subject to an audit and which have made remarkable progress in a fairly short time.
A further question which was raised about education referred to the fact that only new schools will be accessible under the legislation. However, it is worth pointing out that, each year, half the capital budget goes on new build, and schools will have to observe the rules. It is not reasonable to suggest that there is only a limited amount of new build and that nothing else will be covered.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) intends to vote against the reasoned amendment, and his speech about his reasons for coming to that decision should stand as an example to those who may be thinking of taking a different course.
My hon. Friend asked about the importance of addressing the question of lack of disabled access to our courts. The Government place a high priority on ensuring that disabled people are able to access our courts. Much work has already been done in that area. For example, at least one court room in every new Crown and county court is equipped with an infra-red hearing system for people who have poor hearing. Courts will be subject to the new right of access and we will bring forward proposals for consultation on how that right will apply in this area.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that we make provision in our tribunals for hearing and sight-impaired individuals and for those with communication difficulties. Special arrangements are made to ensure that they are helped in that context.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend consider extending that support, for example, to assisting disabled people in preparing their cases before they come to the tribunals? Could that be associated with green form support?

Miss Widdecombe: Some legal aid is available to disabled people in preparing for tribunals, but I shall undertake to look further at what my hon. Friend has said.
The winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) departed in tone from much of the debate. He asked how the Government could be trusted with looking after the rights of people with disabilities. All he has to do is look at our record of caring for people with disabilities. I suggest that he look at the dozens of measures that we have implemented since 1979. I shall list some, in case Labour Members have forgotten them.
Do Labour Members recall how we look after not only the disabled but their carers? We extended the invalid care allowance to non-relatives in 1984. The Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 placed further requirements on local authorities concerning assessment and statements for school children with special educational needs.
What about the introduction of the disablement advisory service in 1983–84? What about the introduction of the severe disablement allowance, the disability living allowance, the disability working allowance and the sheltered placement scheme? What about the provisions that we put in place for building regulations? What about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988? We have introduced all those measures, but the Opposition do not think that we can be trusted.
Do Labour Members have a record which compares to that? Of course they do not. Tonight, we have a choice: we can accept the Bill and move towards the most comprehensive proposal for safeguarding the rights of disabled people that has come forward in decades, or we can reject the Bill and return to the situation of last year, with a thoroughly unsatisfactory, very ambitious but very impractical substitute measure.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I am afraid that I will not give way at this point. The last time I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, he quoted 91 per cent. of 11 as a definitive


explanation of the views of employers. I shall not give way to Opposition Members, and I hope that no one in the House will give way to the reasoned amendment. I hope that we shall now put on its journey towards the statute book a major measure which everybody out there who is disabled or who is caring for the disabled wants and hopes to see.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 307.

Division No. 47]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jon


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Alton, David
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beggs, Roy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Enright, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Berry, Roger
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galbraith, Sam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D N
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Carlie, Alexander (Montgomery)
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Church, Judith
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hall, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry:
Harvey, Nick


Connarty, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corston, Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Margaret


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate





Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Home Robertson, John
Mudie, George


Hood, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoyle, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Neil, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patchett, Terry


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powel, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Tessa
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKelvey, William
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


MacShane, Denis
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevenson, George


Maddock, Diana
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettlleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martlew, Eric
Timms, Stephen


Maxton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wallace, James


Milburn, Alan
Walley, Joan


Miller, Andrew
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Watson, Mike


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Brian






Winnick, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wise, Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Stephen Byers and


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. Peter Mandelson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Delvin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Ancram, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, Dudley


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright Sir Graham
Gallie, Phil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clappison, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hannam, Sir John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Congdon, David
Hawkins, Nick


Conway, Derek
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heald, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hicks, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Day, Stephen
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)





Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knox, Sir David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lamont Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Watts, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any sums required by the Secretary of State—

(a) for making payments to persons appointed under, or in accordance with arrangements made under, the Act;
(b) for paying expenses incurred by the National Disability Council; and
(c) in respect of any other expenditure incurred by him under or by virtue of the Act;

(2) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in complying with any provision of the Act; and
(3) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money so provided under or by virtue of any other enactment—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Local Government

Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3025), dated 28th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to move the motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends. It is not often that the Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to initiate a debate in the House. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Liberal Democrats will not only initiate a debate; they will be heard in the House. Will Members who are leaving do so quickly? Close the doors so that we can hear what the hon. Member for Newbury has to say.

Mr. Rendel: I am especially pleased that we have today an opportunity to bring before the House a matter of such crucial importance. It is crucial not just to the individuals in local government who may be unfortunate enough to lose their jobs through redundancy but to the whole process of local government reform itself.
The regulations that the motion seeks to annul are unfair, inadequate and unlikely to attract sufficient numbers of voluntary redundancies. It is, therefore, important that the House should have a chance to debate them. I hope that as a result of the debate the Government will accept the annulment and return with an improved set of regulations as soon as possible. As the regulations cover England and Wales, but not Scotland, I hope that the annulment, which will result if the motion is passed later tonight, will persuade the Government to withdraw the equivalent set of regulations in Scotland.
The regulations have three main purposes: part II puts in place a scheme for redundancy payments above the statutory minimum for cases of redundancy that are separate from those caused by the reorganisation of local government. Part III deals with redundancy payments and early retirement for employees who lose their jobs as a result of local government reorganisation; and part IV seeks to overcome some of the difficulties caused when the notorious north Tyneside judgment led to an unforeseen reduction in the level of pension for some ex-local government employees, who had previously been made redundant or who left in the interests of the efficiency of the service.
Most of my remarks this evening will be directed towards part III, but it may be, appropriate at this point to begin with a few remarks about the inaccuracies of parts II and IV.
First, I pay tribute to the various bodies which have done their best to provide the Government with what would have been an acceptable set of regulations for local government redundancies. The local government associations, the Staff Commission and Unison in particular have all done valuable work in making sensible proposals and, in doing so, have given me invaluable support in considering how to react to the Government's response.
Those bodies consider part II to be the least unacceptable part of the proposals. Unison is unhappy that some degree of discretion is allowed to local councils by


part II, but it is largely welcomed by the local authority associations. There is good reason to support some discretion in cases where we are not dealing with a large scale redundancy programme, as we may well be during the period of local government reorganisation.
However, it is greatly to be regretted that that discretion is fettered to the extent that the maximum payments allowed under that part are still well below payments which are being offered to civil servants in many cases.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing such an urgent matter to the attention of the House. Is it not extraordinary that in Wales the level of payments given to redundant local government officers will be even lower than in England to start with and, even more extraordinary, to emphasise the point that has just been made, civil servants in the Welsh Office, perhaps with a similar experience and background to those in local government, will receive about £72,000 in redundancy pay, whereas the equivalent in local government will receive as little as £29,000? It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State cannot control his own Department while doing this to people in local government.

Mr. Rendel: I feel at least as sorry for the Welsh as I feel for the English in this case. Surely, in considering the different merits of civil servants and local government officers, the Government should recognise that what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander.
The attempt in part IV to overcome the problems produced by the north Tyneside judgment is also welcome in so far as it goes, but it is no better than a half-hearted and partial solution to the problems. Not all those affected will be covered by the new measures and those who are affected will, for the most part, not be fully compensated.
The fact that the compensation is discretionary is, in this case, simply a temptation to those local authorities which tend not to act in a responsible way in relation to their staff. After all, these are staff who, by definition, finished their service with the local authority some time ago. Clearly, the pressure on the local authority to treat them properly is so much reduced that we would be foolish to allow an unnecessary level of discretion in this case.
The Government should have put the pensioners affected back in the position that they were in before the north Tyneside judgment was made. That would have been the fair way to deal with the situation. After all, it is not the pensioners' fault that the law was misunderstood by those who should have known better. The pensioners should not now have to pay any of the costs of that misunderstanding.
I come now to what most of us consider to be the heart of the regulations, or at least the section which has the greatest importance for the immediate future—the section which deals with local government reorganisation. Sadly, not only is part III the heart of the regulations, but it is the part in the greatest need of significant amendment.
The first and most telling criticism of all is that the maximum level of payments to be made under the regulations is, quite simply, far too low, especially in relation to precedents set in previous episodes of local government reorganisation and by the modern day civil service.
For example, the maximum level set in the 1986 reorganisation for a 49-year-old with service throughout his or her career was 82 weeks' pay compared with a maximum of 66 weeks' pay under these regulations. It might be said that those were different, easier times, when the country could afford more; times when it was not so necessary to watch every penny. Is that the Government's argument? Are they really arguing that the economy has got steadily worse in the past 10 years of Conservative rule, so we can now afford to pay people only 80 per cent. of what we could afford to pay them 10 years ago? Surely not.

Mr. Alex Carlile: A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a valid point about the redundancy pay level available to local government employees in Wales. Does my hon. Friend accept that a further problem is overlaid on the quantum and it especially affects local government officers who face redundancy in rural Wales? They face the grave problem of finding new jobs, if they have lived in a rural area for the past 15 or 20 years, and if their families have settled in those rural areas. Does my hon. Friend think that a strong case exists for protecting in particular those many local government employees in rural mid-Wales, who face terrible uncertainty and financial loss?

Mr. Rendel: Indeed. I accept the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. His case is all the stronger in that Wales has not been treated in the same way as England. Wales went through its organisation process by diktat of the Minister, rather than by a process of agreement by the people of the country.
The argument that the Government might think that we are now poorer is, in some ways, refuted by what is happening in the civil service. The very same Treasury mandarins who insist that 66 weeks pay must be the maximum for local government officials, have managed to negotiate a package for redundancies from their own Ministry which, I understand, amounts to a maximum payment of no less than 156 weeks pay. That, however, is not the only fault in part III of the regulations, even if it is the most obviously hypocritical.
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided that the scheme to be introduced for people under 50 is to be mandatory. In a major reorganisation of this sort, it is right that all employees who stand to be made redundant across the whole country should know what to expect by way of compensation. Nothing is guaranteed further to inflame an already emotive situation than for different councils to offer different redundancy terms as they go through the same trauma of reorganisation.
The fact that the Government have been forced to recognise the strength of that argument for people who are under 50 makes it all the more strange that they have failed to recognise that the argument is just as strong for people who are over 50. That is another serious fault in the regulations and another reason why the annulment should be agreed tonight, so that the Government can introduce a new set of regulations to ensure that all local government employees are fairly treated and have a clear picture of what their rights are.
A third problem lies in the failure of the Government to introduce any special provisions for people in the age bracket of 40 to 49. Unfortunately, I have been in the position of trying to find work when aged over 40. Who knows, had it not been for the people of the Newbury


constituency asking me to carry out my present responsibilities, I might still be looking for work. Besides, I am sure that all hon. Members have come across several constituents who have complained to them bitterly about the ageism of employers, about the way in which, in some careers, it is now almost impossible to get even an interview, let alone to get a job, once one has passed the magic figure of 40.
There is a pressing need, therefore, to make special provision for people who are in that especially difficult part of their careers. They are far too young to retire—what a waste it would be if retirement were their only option—and yet they are old enough to find it desperately difficult to find another job.
Finally on part III, there is the inadequacy of the provisions for people whose work for local government has, so far, been limited either because they are part-timers, or because they have only recently taken up their local government employment. Those people, more often women than men, do not deserve to be neglected just because they have not yet had the chance to put in a long period of service. Their needs should be provided for in the regulations.
Why is this all so important? Whenever we think of the local government reorganisation shambles, as it has turned out to be, we must all hope that the process, whenever it does go ahead, proceeds as smoothly as possible. We must hope that, not just for the sake of the employees concerned as they go through what will no doubt turn out to be a very traumatic period for some of them, but, perhaps even more important, for the sake of all the recipients of local authority services—residents of local authority areas, many of whom are the very people who elected us to speak for them here. Many of those people fear that local authority services will be disrupted by the reorganisation.
One way in which we can allay some of those fears is to ensure that, where redundancies and early retirements are necessary, they take place smoothly and with the maximum acceptance by the employees involved. Surely experience has taught us that to offer redundancy terms less good that those that have been offered in similar circumstances in the past is a sure way to create discontent and low morale. That is true not only of those who are eventually forced to accept the terms but—this is important—of those who are left behind.
If the Government sincerely want local government reorganisation to be a success, one of their first tasks should be to improve the regulations to ensure that all the redundancies that it is expected to cause can be voluntary rather than compulsory.
Although this is not at the heart of the debate, let me say in passing that the Government's failure to provide adequate funds for the costs of local government reorganistion in areas such as Berskshire where, on top of the transitional costs, there are expected to be on-going costs rather than on-going savings—can serve only to exacerbate the problem of redundancy costs. Indeed, it may even force some councils to use the discretion that the Government are giving them to minimise redundancy payments, which can only make the problem of inadequate payments even worse.
We see, then, just how fundamentally the regulations demand to be improved: indeed, I believe that the very success of local government reorganisation hangs on their being improved. This is another example of how the

Government have got it in for local government, and local government officers, in a big way. What is it about local government that makes this Conservative Administration hate it so much? Could it be that the Government know that the number of Conservative councillors is falling year by year, and that most of the seats are being taken over by Liberal Democrats?
Whatever it is, the Government would be well advised to admit tonight that the regulations are nowhere near adequate. If they refuse to vote to annul the regulations—as my hon. Friends and I will—they will find that their decision traps them yet deeper in the mire into which they have fallen over the whole question of local government reform. Tonight, the Liberal Democrats have provided the Government with an opportunity to overcome the difficulties in which the regulations will land them otherwise; they should seize that opportunity with both hands.

Mr. Roy Thomason: I am surprised by the prayer, and by the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)—although I congratulate him on moving the motion and giving us an opportunity to debate it.
I am surprised first by the hon. Gentleman's claim that the local authority associations do not support the proposals, because I have a piece of paper from the Association of District Councils that suggests that they do support them. Secondly, I am surprised that the Liberal party—which began the week with a demand for the Labour party to come clean over its spending plans, and sought to cost the expenditure of that same party only a few days later—should seek to increase public expenditure as it is tonight. Is there much difference between the two Opposition parties?
Thirdly, I am surprised because it appears that Unison has yet another spokesperson on the Opposition Benches. Fourthly, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury seems to think that one can make an argument in favour of increasing expenditure and improving conditions of employment by mounting one settlement upon another. We know that is the very reason why inflation has gone out of control in the past.
One cannot take the civil service settlement and seek to improve on it, because in turn somebody will come along with an attempt to improve it further, which leads inevitably to escalation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I hear the cries of the Opposition. That way leads to ruin, because each settlement is taking more public expenditure than the previous one, and adds more to inflation, step by gruesome step.

Mr. Rogers: Why does not the hon. Gentleman follow the logic of his own argument and attack the Ministers who agreed to the civil service settlement, rather than trying to exploit people in local government who have no real voice? If there is a bad settlement—the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the civil service settlement was had—why does he not criticise Ministers?

Mr. Thomason: I did not say that the civil service settlement was a bad one. My argument is that the Labour party—and apparently now the Liberal Democrat party—


is seeking to use one settlement to step above another to increase public expenditure. That is the old story which we have heard so often.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the McKinstry memorandum in The Spectator, in which Leo McKinstry described the way in which the Labour party has operated in local government and said what a great indication that was of what it would be like in government, goes very much to the heart of the issue and explains the parrot cries from Opposition Members?

Mr. Thomason: My hon. Friend is right.
I do not wish to detain the House, so I shall briefly ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can define "material date" for the purposes of the regulations, and whether he can confirm that the regulations are improving local discretion by giving power to local government to make decisions. Can he also confirm that the national joint negotiating bodies are likely to meet later this week to agree tariffs for the over-50s that are generous, and to agree to settle terms that some of us consider to be more than fair? Can he further confirm that meetings are taking place on 26 January between the local authorities and the unions, which could give a guaranteed offer of new jobs after reorganisation to those who want them? Will not that answer the criticisms raised by the hon. Member for Newbury?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the present proposed costs—not any enhanced costs—of this provision could be met by savings that will be generated from the local government review? Does he further agree that this measure should be welcomed on both sides of the Chamber as being in the interests of local government employees?

Mr. Frank Dobson: Tonight the House has a very clear choice. We are dealing with the future of people who will lose their jobs in local councils through no fault of their own, either through general redundancy or through the local government reorganisation that the Government are pushing through. The question is whether such people should get a fair deal, and the choice before the House tonight is whether people are treated fairly or meanly.
The choice is not between a generous settlement and a mean settlement—it is a much narrower choice between a fair settlement and a mean settlement. Needless to say, the alternative that the Government are proposing tonight is a mean alternative. We all know that the Government are extremely generous to rich people, and that they are happy to pour money into the pockets and handbags of the bosses of privatised industries. They look after themselves rather nicely, and they are very mean to people who cannot fight back.
The regulations cover three categories of staff—staff who are likely to be made redundant by the local government review, staff who may he made redundant generally and pensioners whose pensions were cut as a result of the court decisions on North Tyneside.
First, on the local government review, contrary to what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, the staff are not seeking any leapfrogging improvement

on what has gone before. They are simply asking for a settlement along the lines that the Government conceded in 1986, when the metropolitan counties were abolished—the terms agreed by Margaret Thatcher. One might summarise it by saying that the deal that she put together, John Major has decided to put asunder. The settlement can thus be simply categorised as meaner than Thatcher, and it is difficult to think of anything meaner than that.
The settlement is not merely meaner than Thatcher, but worse than what the Staff Commission recommended to the Government, worse than the terms offered to the civil service, and worse than severance payments paid to other categories of people for whom the Government are responsible. The boss of Severn Trent Water, for example, got £512,000 as part of his severance agreement, which was entirely the Government's responsibility as they passed the legislation that enabled him to pay himself that enormous amount.
If someone is made redundant as part of the local government review, the regulations allow maximum compensation of 66 weeks, which compares with the 82 weeks to which Mrs. Thatcher agreed in 1986 and which the Staff Commission recommended, and the 156 weeks that this Government and these Ministers have agreed will be available in the civil service.
Let us consider an example of what will happen in Wales as a result of the regulations. Under the civil service severance agreement, a 45-year-old civil servant in the Welsh Office with 26 years' service, earning £23,000, will get £71,000, but a local government officer in Wales, aged 45—perhaps the civil servant's twin brother or sister—and earning £23,000 after 26 years' service, would get £29,570 at the most, which cannot be fair or reasonable.
The scheme is mandatory only up to the age of 50, or for people over that age who are not entitled to a pension when they give up work. It also provides some special arrangements for people who are entitled to a pension. Once again, the Government have chosen the mean-minded alternative. Generally, those over 50 who are entitled to a pension will receive only statutory redundancy pay because the Government have apparently decided that the pension, which people have worked and paid for, should be taken into account when they allow a special severance payment as a result of a local government review that they introduced. People who are paid a salary will have to live on a pension and statutory redundancy, without the Government making up any of the difference.
The Government and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, who is supporting them, claim that they cannot afford better terms. Presumably they think that, from a Government point of view, times are harder than they were in 1986.
There are two choices. No one knows how many people may be made redundant as a result of the local government review. If it is to be a large number, massive savings in expenditure will result in the years to come and it would surely be easy to find the money to pay a decent severance payment out of those savings. If few people are to be affected by redundancy, the sums will be so trivial that it will be equally easy for the Government or local government to find them.
The second aspect of the regulations is the enhanced payment for people made redundant because of changes in the internal organisation of their council. I admit that


the regulations improve the maximum under such arrangements, from 24.5 to 66 weeks, but that is not the 82 weeks for which the staff have been asking, and it is not mandatory. The payments are entirely discretionary and, given the choice between a fair and a mean arrangement, yet again the Government have chosen a mean one.
The third aspect is the North Tyneside judgment. When the district auditor went through North Tyneside council's books, he said that enhanced severance payments and top-up retirement bonuses, given to staff were unlawful. That has left existing pensioners, not just in north Tyneside but in other parts of the country, who retired in good faith with a higher pension as part of those agreements, with lower pensions. Indeed, some of them have been asked to pay back the lump sums that they received. All those involved in those agreements—employers and employees—were acting in good faith and believed that they were acting lawfully at all times. Councils of all parties believe that to be the case.
One of the areas most affected, which is dear to the hearts of Tory Members, is Tory Westminster council. It agreed to some of the biggest enhanced pension arrangements and pay-offs when people left local government service of any council in Britain. Some 600 of its former staff—now its pensioners—are now faced with substantial reductions in their living standards. The same applies to agreements with the then Tory Hillingdon council.
Everyone agrees that the matter should be put right. What everybody thought was lawful and reasonable should be made lawful and reasonable. But it is not being made so by the regulations, which fail to put pensioners in the position that they thought they were in before that unexpected judgment.
In passing, I comment on the strange inconsistencies of the district audit service, which for years said nothing about those enhanced payments. In the year when district auditors in North Tyneside identified the payments as unlawful, the district auditors in Hillingdon and Westminster apparently still saw them as lawful. We need more consistency in the system.
Furthermore, the arrangements are not mandatory. Whether Westminster pensioners get back even what is permitted under the regulations is entirely in the hands of Westminster city council, from which we can expect no sensible decision. In other councils, all the money that pensioners have lost will not be made up. Indeed, the judgment may affect other pensioners who were paid off before the period covered by the regulations, and they may still lose. Once again, these are sloppily drafted and mean-minded regulations. What the Government are doing might be described as "a Maxwell" on the pensioners, but in this case it is by statutory instrument.
Various people advise me that aspects of the regulations are technically unsound and may lead to the Minister having to come back within a very short period to put them right. My Welsh colleagues want to know why the period covered by the regulations is 18 months in England but only 15 months in Wales.
The regulations are mean to council staff who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. They are in marked contrast to the generous attitude that the Government have towards themselves and their colleagues. Since the settlement in 1986, the Conservatives have introduced and benefited from ministerial severance payments. Those are

made to people who lose their jobs not through no fault of their own but either because even the Prime Minister finally recognises that they are totally incompetent or because they are up to something, financially or with somebody who is not their spouse. Those seem to be the reasons why Ministers lose their jobs, yet they get severance payments in those circumstances.
The other part of the ministerial severance package is that Ministers then go on to jobs in the City with Barclays bank, in industries that they have privatised, or in merchant banks that have taken part in the privatisation process. The Government are very generous to themselves but mean to everybody else. The regulations are typical of what they are up to, and people are sick of it.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): rose—

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a defender of Back Benchers, do you believe that in a debate of one and quarter hours it is appropriate that there should be three opening speeches and three closing speeches from Front-Bench spokesmen? Do you think it appropriate that we should have had just one speech from a Conservative Back Bencher and not even one from an Opposition Back Bencher? That is an abuse of parliamentary procedure and I ask you to protect Back Benchers on both sides of the House from such abuse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That point of order has been noted.

Mr. Curry: This is a serious matter because people's livelihoods are affected and they are naturally anxious. It merits a serious debate.
Although I do not agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), he treated the subject seriously. The hon. Member for Holborn and St.Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has a particular talent for disfiguring any subject with which he comes into contact—mainly, it must be said, as a pretext for his failure to understand the substance of it.
Local government reorganisation is at an advanced stage. The commission has submitted final reports for all 39 shire counties and the Cleveland order has been approved by both Houses. I know that the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) are looking forward to joining their colleagues in the Lobby tonight.
We are consulting on draft orders to implement changes in Avon, Humberside and York and we are aiming to seek parliamentary approval soon, in time for elections to be held in May. Further orders will be laid as decisions are taken.
Change is a normal part of local government. The search for efficiency, the changes in function and the growing success of the role of local government as an enabler has inevitably meant that there will be different staffing requirements. No organisation can petrify its structure if it is to respond to public needs and its own search for greater efficiency.
That is the context in which the new local government compensation regulations have been introduced. Those regulations are not confined just to local government


reorganisation, but, as hon. Members have already noted, they achieve three things. First, they provide a better and more flexible general compensation scheme, for which local authority employers have long asked, for use in all cases—not just reorganisation. Secondly, we have made special extra provisions to suit the particular circumstances of local government reorganisation, reflecting the key role to be played by local government staff in the transition to restructured authorities.
Thirdly, we have provided the means for compensation to be paid to those pensioners who are adversely affected by the North Tyneside Court of Appeal judgment. Only one of the three elements covered in the regulations therefore refers to local government reorganisation.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Curry: I will give way, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt want me to press ahead in the interests of Back Benchers.

Mr. O'Brien: If the Minister will not accept the annulment of the regulations, will he support those local authorities that are involved in the reorganisation of local government which do not wish to make people compulsorily redundant? Would he agree to negotiate a national agreement on severance and conditions for those who agree to leave their employment voluntarily?

Mr. Curry: It is entirely up to a new council to make staffing dispositions; the Government do not intend to lay down whether redundancies should be compulsory or voluntary. It is up to councils to seek the changes by the methods which they arrive at. That is what the principle of allowing local authority discretion means. I understand that the negotiating body is likely to agree soon that the discretionary awards in the regulations will be paid at the maximum. That could obviously benefit the over-50s and the other groups covered by the regulations.

Mr. Llwyd: Can the Minister explain why Wales is being treated differently? Is he aware that, during the passage of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, the implications of reorganisation were raised time and time with Welsh Office Ministers? Assurances were given about improving conditions and so on, but to date nothing has been done. We have been badly treated by the Government.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are some differences between England and Wales.

Mr. Rogers: Why?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I will tell him.
The first difference is that the prescribed period to which part III applies in England is 18 months after the vesting day; in Wales, it runs from three months before to a year after. That is the result of a consultation that was undertaken. In Wales, the consultation resulted in the choice of that formula; in England, people preferred a

different period. The United Kingdom has constituent parts which have their own characteristics, so I see no problem in that.

Mr. Nick Ainger: rose—

Mr. Curry: I have not finished the answer to the first intervention yet.
As far as the other condition is concerned, loss of employment in Wales must be attributable to provisions made under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, because it is intended to target part III to staff losing their jobs because of reorganisation, and not for other reasons.
I think that you would want me to make progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
As I said, we have made additional provision because of the specific circumstances of reorganisation. I have also mentioned the North Tyneside position.
The regulations provide new and significantly improved compensation terms for local government staff in England and Wales in cases of redundancy, which may occur as part of the normal operations of local government. Before the regulations came into force, local government employees aged below 50 could receive only the minimum statutory payments on redundancy. The most that could be given to an employee under the age of 50 was 24 weeks' pay. Under the new regulations, for all future general cases of redundancy, local authorities have the discretion to make payments of up to 66 weeks' pay for employees, based on a tariff according to age and service.
Employees aged over 50 have, for many years, had a better deal than those aged below 50. If they have two years' service, they are entitled to immediate payment of their pension and pension lump sum. In addition, if they have at least five years' service, they may receive a discretionary top-up to their pension benefits. That provision has not changed. Local government employees aged over 50 facing redundancy as a result of normal change in local government can still receive those benefits.
As well as introducing significantly better severance terms for general cases of redundancy, the regulations provide extra benefits for employees made redundant from local government service specifically as a result of local government reorganisation. Those benefits are, first, that the maximum amounts permitted under the 66-week tariff are mandatory for staff aged under 50 affected by reorganisation. [HoN. MEMBERS: "How much?") They are maximum and mandatory. Secondly, for the over-50s made redundant in reorganisation cases, there are options for further compensation payments at the employer's discretion. I shall say more about that later.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Curry: If I can make progress, I will return to that later.
We have also taken the opportunity provided by the regulations to provide local authorities with new powers to enable them to compensate those of their pensioners who suffered reductions in their pension payments as a result of the 1992 Court of Appeal decision in Allsop v. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council. As hon. Members will recall, that judgment declared unlawful the


local severance scheme operated by North Tyneside council and, as a consequence, several councils had to terminate pension claims made under their local schemes—although I have not heard of cases of pensioners being required to pay back lump sums. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has specific references to that, I will be pleased to receive them.
Many of those pensions, which authorities had agreed, had been in payment for some years before being redluced. Some of those pensioners have had to wait more than two years for compensation, and the new powers that we are giving to local authorities will be widely welcomed.
All those new provisions, which flow directly from discussions that we have had with the Staff Commissions, the local authority associations and the Local Government Management Board, incorporate the results of two extensive consultation exercises among all interested parties, and provide the framework that local government has sought.
We have modified our proposals substantially in the light of the consultation exercises. Specifically, we have amended our proposals to make a mandatory arrangement for reorganisation cases.

Mr. Steen: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because the matter that I wish to mention will not come out in any other way. The Prime Minister said last year that there would be fewer rules and regulations in the House. There were going to be fewer rules and regulations on the Floor of the House, fewer rules and regulations upstairs and fewer downstairs. Yet every time that I enter the Chamber, there is another rule or regulation. Why do we have to take this course tonight? Only the other day I was dealing with the town and country planning regulations; now we are discussing another regulation. Is the deregulation arrangement working in the Minister's Department?

Mr. Curry: The answer to the second question is yes. The answer to the first question is that, if there is reorganisation, one has to make provision—as has been made in the past—for those people affected by it. We have taken advantage of that fact to enhance the conditions for all local authority members. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is relatively unusual now to be here at nearly 11 pm, and perhaps we have become accustomed to slightly soft ways in the House.

Mr. Steen: Wednesday mornings and Friday mornings?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is a slave to duty.

Mr. Tipping: Although the Minister has amended the regulations to take account of criticisms, will he explain why the figure given now is 66 weeks when, back in 1986 when the metropolitan counties were abolished, 82 weeks redundancy payment was offered?

Mr. Curry: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies I must inform the House that all the interventions—it is not a matter for the Chair to criticise

them as they are in order—are ruling out hon. Members who wish to speak and who have taken the trouble to write to the Speaker to ask to speak.

Mr. Curry: I like to give way as I think that that helps the debate, but in view of your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now try to move to the conclusion of my speech. I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) because I had anticipated it. If he has patience, we shall get there—with the tolerance of his colleagues.
The compensation package that we have adopted, as contained in the regulations, means that local government employees under the age of 50 on being made redundant as part of normal staffing changes, can now receive compensation equal to the maximum of two weeks pay for each year of local government service over the age of 23. In addition, each year of service over the age of 42 counts for five weeks pay, leading to a total equivalent to 66 weeks pay. Those improvements also apply to redundancies due to reorganisation, with the important proviso that in this circumstance it is mandatory for local authorities to pay the maximum amounts available.
Secondly, we have also provided that extra powers are available to provide benefits to those aged 50 and over made redundant as a result of reorganisation. At the employers' discretion, such employees' pensions can be increased if they have five or more years service, or they can receive the lump sum compensation payment—up to 66 weeks pay in some cases. For those with between two and five years service, we are making available the option of additional compensation in lieu of immediate payment of pension.
In formulating the regulations, we had helpful and detailed assistance from the Local Government Staff Commission in England and the Staff Commission for Wales. The Staff Commission was expressly asked to consider whether there should be a special scheme for staff made redundant as a result of reorganisation and, if so, whether the arrangements should be discretionary or mandatory. After consideration, it advised that there should be a special scheme, and that is now provided. It also recommended that the scheme should be mandatory—a proposal that has been implemented in respect of staff under 50. A special mandatory level payment has been included as one of the options for the over-50s.
Other recommendations by the Staff Commission—for example that the age group of 45 to 49-year-olds should be targeted for the highest payments and that the age service banding should closely follow that used in previous reorganisations—have also been followed. In some respects, such as the 18-month period for the reorganisation terms in England, we have bettered what the Staff Commission recommended.
Two recommendations of the Staff Commission were not followed in full. Those were that the maximum limit for payments should be set at 82 weeks and that it should be mandatory for over-50s to receive maximum added years enhancement to their pension and pension lump sum.
The precedent of the GLC and the metropolitan counties abolition is prayed in aid. However, the 82 weeks maximum was available in 1986 only to a very limited group of employees. In fact, employees had to be aged exactly 49 and to have over 25 years service to qualify


for that amount. Anybody aged less than 49 could not receive 82 weeks and received similar amounts in 1986 to those available under the regulations. A 45-year-old with 27 or more years service would receive 66 weeks pay under both the 1986 regulations and under our new regulations.
We have targeted the maximum 66 weeks to employees aged between 45 and 49—the very group that the Staff Commission and other consultees asked us specifically to earmark for higher compensation payments. The 66 weeks maximum was settled upon only after full account was taken of all the relevant factors. I am sure that it is the right level—it is more than two and a half times better than the compensation previously available to local government employees. Taken together with the other measures that we have introduced or are proposing—including our proposed compensation for detriment, the consultation period for which closed yesterday—those regulations provide a very much improved and flexible statutory-based compensation package.
The other recommendation of the Staff Commission which we have not fully followed is that staff over 50 years of age should receive mandatory payment of added years, which results in higher pension payments. I believe that this would be an expensive imposition on local authorities' discretion. Under our proposals, employing authorities may choose to pay maximum added years if they believe that the case for doing so is justified. We have also provided the alternative of a lump sum payment according to personal circumstances. Such a single sum may be more welcome to individuals than relatively small increases in continuing pension payments.
Local government employers and their employees now know where they stand on redundancy payments and they can plan for the future. The decisions themselves are for the councils to make. We have provided a proper statutory protection for staff affected by reorganisation and for all local authority staff affected by change. If the motion to reject the package is successful, not only will the package for staff affected by local government reorganisation fall, but so will the great improvement in the security of all local government staff. It will also mean that pensioners who stand to receive compensation for cuts in their pensions will be immediate losers. I trust that the House will firmly reject such an outcome.

Mr. Dobson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman given way?

Mr. Curry: Congeniality is second nature to me, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dobson: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman accepts that the pensioners who retired in good faith feel that, one way or another, they have been swindled out of the pensions to which they and their employers thought that they were entitled. Can he tell us why he is not proposing a scheme which will restore to each and every one of them by right the money that they have lost as a

result of the judgement? Why does he accept that some of them will not get full restoration, and why is he leaving the decision to the discretion of the councils?

Mr. Curry: First, the hon. Gentleman talks about pensioners being swindled. I think that one has to be cautious in using that sort of terminology when speaking about something that has happened as a result of a court ruling. The pensioners may feel that they were dealt with unjustly, but one must be careful how one reflects that feeling.
Secondly, we have provided for 66 weeks in the regulations which cover those people affected by both reorganisation and the normal run of changes in local authorities' competences and employment. It seems reasonable that, if 66 weeks is applied to those cases, it should apply also to the generality of cases, so that everyone is on the same footing. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable position, and the overwhelming number of pensioners will receive full compensation under that methodology.

Mr. Clive Betts: I wish to comment on the North Tyneside follow-up and the regulations. The Minister must be much clearer about the position of pensioners who were affected by the genuine and proper decisions taken by local authorities, generally on the basis of legal advice.
Will the Minister assure the House that people who entered into agreements with local authorities that they would retire under a certain compensation package will not have that package reduced as a result of the regulations? It is most improper for the House to pass regulations that will have the effect of reducing the pensions of people who entered into an agreement with their local authorities in good faith.
While I am on that subject, I take strong exception to the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). He spoke of people who "should have known better"—presumably referring to the local authorities which made the decisions at the time. My local authority received advice from our legal officers and from counsel on the subject before we reached a decision. Certainly members of both the leading political parties took that decision seriously. The fact that the hon. Gentleman's colleague on the committee at the time walked out halfway through the meeting and refused to pass a vote on the subject is probably not untypical of the way in which the Liberal party behaves in such circumstances.
Let me also comment briefly on the issues that affect the current reorganisation of local government and the compensatory arrangements for redundancy. First, it is disappointing that the Government did not concede the general issue that was put to them by the local authority associations and the unions—that staff transfer orders should have applied to all staff. It would have been much easier to have sorted out all the arrangements for redundancy, retirement and compensation had that approach been taken.
The problem now is that staff are in totally different positions. Some are subject to staff transfer orders, some have chief officer open interviews and others have priority interviews. They do not know whether redundancy rules will apply to them. In direct service organisations, for example, staff still do not know whether their jobs will


exist after the reorganisation, although private contractors that employ people have contracts with the authorities, and the new authorities will have to honour those contracts. That is wrong, and something should be done to sort it out.
Equally, the Government have not issued any proper advice on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and that certainly will affect people who are made redundant. It is time the Government sorted it out. Clearly, it is a substantial mess. A general staff transfer order would have resolved that problem and allowed the redundancy issues to be sorted out in a more ordered and proper way.
I am one of the few people in the House who can think back to 1986 and say that I was party to the issues which applied to the metropolitan county reorganisation from both sides. I was both a councillor and an employee, one of Sheffield city council and the other of the South Yorkshire local authority, so I saw the regulations from both sides and generally they worked pretty well.
The question that the. Minister has not answered tonight—he tried to answer it by explaining that only a small group of staff would benefit if the maximum number of weeks was 82 and not 66—is why a system which worked in 1986 has now been changed. He did not say why the Staff Commission,. which recommended that exactly the same rules that applied in 1986 should apply now, was ignored. His argument that 82 weeks applied only to a certain number of staff was surely taken on board by the Staff Commission when it recommended that 82 weeks should be the maximum period. Why did he demur from the Staff Commission's decision?

Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Betts: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as he has had his say and I am aware that others want to speak.
The Minister also did not answer why the Staff Commission recommended that the scheme for the over-50s should be mandatory. Why did the Minister not accept that recommendation? It was good enough in 1986; why is it not good enough for staff in 1995?
Those questions certainly need answering because they affect people who are not responsible for the changes. They are not staff who have been inefficient or unproductive, but staff who are affected by a political change beyond their control. They want some degree of certainty and a feeling that their interests are being recognised and looked after.
Finally, the Minister said nothing about the funding of the scheme. I agree that the scheme should be mandatory because—rightly or wrongly—the House is compelling reorganisation on local authorities. I support some of the changes, but the House is making the decisions, so the scheme should be mandatory.
The House should also make provision for the proper funding of the arrangements. All that we know for the next financial year is that the Government will top-slice £50 million of capital to allow local authorities to borrow to try to fund the schemes. We also know that money is topsliced, so every other authority in the country will suffer.
My authority represents about one hundredth of the population of the country, so if one subtracts one hundredth of the cost of £50 million from its own

borrowing, it will lose £500,000 of borrowing to help fund the reorganisation schemes. My local authority, therefore, loses more than its total allocation of borrowing for social services in the city of Sheffield.
Is it not time that the Government accepted their own responsibilities and decided to fund the schemes? Will they guarantee that the sum of £50 million for 1995–96 will be substantially increased for 1996–97, when the majority of those costs will fall? Will they guarantee to provide borrowing facilities for those authorities and not do it at the expense of the other authorities in the country?

Mr. Anthony Steen: Although there is not much point in speaking for a minute or two, I thought that the House might like to hear me.
First, I do not understand why, having just adopted the Jopling recommendations, we sat until late last night. We are sitting till midnight tonight, all Wednesday morning, afternoon and evening, on Thursday and on Friday morning. The more the House sits, the more rules and regulations it passes. These regulations are a good example of filling the time available—it is Parkinson's law. My hon. Friend the Minister beautifully and convincingly explained the reason for them, but we should not be passing more and more regulations and sitting later into the night than we did last year. We are passing more regulations in Committee upstairs, in the Chamber and in the basement, despite the Government's commitment to reducing regulations. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that these are the last regulations that he will introduce this Session.

Mr. Roger Berry: Part III of the regulations concerns local government reorganisation and compensation for resulting redundancies. I was involved in local government for 12 years before entering the House and I have grave reservations about the redundancy implications of reorganisation in my county of Avon.
If there are to be redundancies, it is essential to provide a fair system of compensation and ensure that the package is realistically funded. Neither is the case. It is accepted that the maximum compensation payable to staff aged 45 to 49 will be 66 weeks' pay, assuming full service from the age of 18. Few staff will be eligible for that maximum. Even then, those terms are significantly worse than those offered when metropolitan authorities were abolished in 1986. If 82 weeks' pay was thought acceptable compensation then, why should a significantly lower amount be acceptable today? the proposed compensation is worth less than the civil service scheme and is vastly poorer than that offered under the last reorganisation in 1974.

Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Berry: I would love to give way, but I am told that there is no time.
The proposed redundancy package is a poor deal for local government staff who have given good service to their communities. The scheme will not attract many voluntary redundancies, but it will lead to more compulsory redundancies from reorganisation. Even though the terms are an insult, local councils will have


difficulty finding the money to fund them. There will be no new money to cover the costs of reorganisation, but only limited powers to borrow.
Most redundancies will occur in 1996–97 and 1997–98. No guarantee has been given that councils will be allowed to borrow in those years as they will need to do. Any redundancy costs that cannot be funded from additional borrowing will have to be met from more cuts in services or higher council tax, if that is allowed.
The regulations provide worse compensation than for any other previous local government reorganisation. They are not fair and will not encourage voluntary redundancies. They will result in further cuts in services and jobs, and they should be opposed.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Labour Members have explained compellingly why we oppose the regulations and want them annulled. The Minister did not touch on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which are vital to Wales because only one of its counties is unaffected by the possibility that workers on the transfer will not be covered by them. As this Government-inspired scheme of local government reorganisation will affect the whole of Wales, there should be no nit-picking over the interpretation and application of TUPE.
The Government's record of interpreting TUPE shows them to have been wrong on virtually every occasion. Rather than engage in a prolonged dogfight, at the end of which the Government will be proved wrong, they should, for the sake of fairness and completeness, accept that TUPE applies to all workers in reorganised local government in Wales.
I come next to arrangements for the proper funding of the local government reorganisation. There seems to be a major debate about the exact number of people likely to be made redundant as a result of the reorganisation. Touche Ross, employed to carry out a survey of the possible consequences for jobs, suggested that about 900 people employed in central services and administrative tasks—out of a total of about 6,000—would probably lose their jobs in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales, however, is on record as saying in the House that he expects very few people to become redundant, because of the scope for retraining and finding new jobs for people in the new unitary authorities. If this is true, it would appear that few savings will be made from these local government changes, yet savings were ostensibly the Government's reason for effecting the reorganisation.
There will be a mandatory scheme for some staff, and the Welsh Office will be prepared to provide supplementary credit approvals to cover those schemes. The Welsh Office will take account of the consequences in future years when the capping criteria are determined. For the discretionary schemes, however, no supplementary credit approvals will be provided. When local authorities apply discretionary schemes, they will not be counted for capping criteria purposes, so authorities will be in danger of being capped for trying to give their employees a fair deal. Given that the Staff Commission has recommended mandatory schemes to cover all

workers who are made redundant, or who choose redundancy, the Government should be prepared to withdraw the scheme tonight and to make further changes.
The shadow Environment Secretary has already cited the huge differences between the Welsh Office redundancy scheme and the one for local government workers. The Minister of State made no attempt to justify the fact that workers in the Welsh Office will receive double what their counterparts in local government will get.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to withdraw the regulations and to introduce others based on the 1986 scheme. It has been claimed that the lower limit of 15 months for the scheme to work in Wales—as opposed to 18 months in England—resulted from consultations with local authorities; but local authorities in Wales at the time were under the impression that the period of 82 weeks would also apply to the new scheme. The Welsh Office has therefore reneged on that part of the agreement, while retaining the 15-month period. That is yet another reason why the regulations should be withdrawn and a new scheme introduced in their place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I shall try to answer all the points raised in this short debate. The House will understand that I feel the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who expressed reservations about what we do here, and when we do it. I think, though, that we are making good progress with the timing.
The Government do not agree that it would be right to annul the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994. The package that they contain is a fair and good one. Local authorities have a certain legal framework to provide equitable and affordable compensation to their employees in a variety of circumstances.
Part II of the regulations—I think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) called it the least unacceptable part—gives councils an opportunity to structure flexible severance packages to suit local needs, at levels that are significantly above those that applied before 28 December. These improved arrangements stem directly from discussions with the local authority associations. A higher overall limit may be preferred by some, but councils, just like anybody else, must live within their means, precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) was seeking to emphasise. The Government took the view that the tariff in part II was at the right level.
Opposition Members tended to concentrate on part III of the regulations. They say that the terms on offer for the staff who lose their jobs because of local government reorganisation are worse than those that would have been available in previous reorganisations, and are worse than those available in the civil service. Civil service pay has traditionally been set to take account of the greater job security that civil servants have, and compensation payments were set at a correspondingly higher level.
What the Opposition do not say is that the compensation for local government employees is now higher than it is for certain other groups of public sector


employees; nor have they recognised that compensation is just one aspect of terms and conditions: it is the whole package that should be compared, not just elements of it. The Government take that wider view, and terms and conditions in local government, taken as a whole, are no worse or better than in other parts of the public sector.
I accept that the compensation terms that applied when the Greater London council and metropolitan councils were abolished involved higher payments only for particular long-serving staff aged 49. That does not mean that the precedent must always be followed slavishly. The detriment consultation scheme, on which we have been consulting, would provide for potentially higher detriment payments than were available in 1986. The key feature of part III of the regulations is a mandatory scheme for staff aged under 50. That was the principal recommendation of the staff commissions for Wales and for England, and our decision to follow it has been widely welcomed.
I acknowledge that the commissions went further and recommended that there should be mandatory "added years" for staff aged over 50 who can receive an immediate pension. The Government did not feel able to accept that recommendation. We have instead provided councils, in these regulations, with a range of options for dealing with staff over 50. It would not make sense to provide a range of options but then decree that one of them—the most expensive, naturally—should be mandatory.
The hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) all sought to allege that Wales has been treated worse in these arrangements than in previous reorganisations. I must remind them that the consultation paper issued last June said that the scheme should apply in Wales only for the calendar year 1996. We received 13 comments on that proposal.
Of those proposals, eight of the responses argued that the period should be extended beyond the calendar year 1996 to 31 March 1997. That is precisely what we have done. We responded to those consultations. Normally, it is claimed that we do not listen to consultations, but on this occasion, we did precisely that.
I want to put it into perspective because, to stress the importance of the point, we also had responses from 15 district councils and four county councils in Wales. Not one of them mentioned the point about the term, nor did a joint response by the Local Government Management Board, the Council of Welsh Districts, the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Wales Trades Union Congress.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was concerned that part IV of the regulations provide a legal basis for councils to make compensatory lump sum payments to pensioners who have suffered reductions in the North Tyneside case. They have waited some time for these provisions. The regulations do not attempt to restore the illegal payments that were made previously, but I hope that authorities will exercise their discretion fairly and sympathetically within the terms of the regulations. As my hon. Friend has already made clear to the House, we have brought forward the right package, and I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 296.

Division No. 48]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Etherington, Bill


Armstrong, Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett Derek


Barnes, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fraser, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts.Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Grant Bernie (Tottenham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D N
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hinchliffe, David


Chidgey, David
Hodge, Margaret


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Church, Judith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and U'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jowell, Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Keen, Alan


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S






Kiffoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lewis, Terry
Primarolo, Dawn


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Purchase, Ken


Litherland, Robert
Radice, Giles


Livingstone, Ken
Randall, Stuart


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Raynsford, Nick


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Short, Clare


Madden, Max
Simpson, Alan


Maddock, Diana
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MareK, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J (Springbum)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stott, Roger


Michael, Alun
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Straw, Jack


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Sutciffe, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G. Grimsby)
Timms, Stephen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Olner, Bill
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Pearson, Ian
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pope, Greg
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Bridget (Lev'm E)
Mr Archy Kirkwood and


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr Don Foster.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ancram, Michael
Bates, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bendall, Vivian


Ashby, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkins, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John





Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garel Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bright Sir Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Camington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Delvin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dover, Den
Jenkin, Bemard


Duncan, Alan
Jessel, Toby


Duncan Smith, Iain
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Elletson, Harold
Key, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fishburn, Dudley
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lidington, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lightbown, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas






MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Sir Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spring, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mils, Iain
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Sir Roger
Stephen, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stem, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sweeney, Walter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Sykes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thumham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Pace, James
Trend, Michael


Patrick, Sir Irvine
Trotter, Neville


Patten, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. James Hill be discharged from the Transport Committee and Sir David Madel be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

South Thames Training and Enterprise Council

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to debate—not before time—what has happened, is happening and will happen to the South Thames training and enterprise council. I also welcome my colleagues from south London who are present; I have received apologies from others who cannot be here, but are no less concerned about the matter than I am.
It is a paradox that yesterday London Pride launched its prospectus, containing a section called "Raising Skills". That section in turn contained a subsection entitled "Training", and read as follows:
London's most pressing challenge is more fundamental. The capital has a very high requirement for basic skills and literacy training which is not being sufficiently met. Current programmes need to be extended to allow more Londoners to progress to medium and higher skill levels.
The Partnership believes: Government must rectify the under-funding of the London TECs. Historically they have been substantially underfunded on key programmes relative to TECs elsewhere. If London is to achieve the targets set, it is essential that this differentiation is addressed.
The partnership prospectus addressed the need for effective mechanisms for providing training in the capital city.
By way of background, training and enterprise councils have been in existence for four years, and there are 82 in this country. Scotland has a parallel system. They were a Government idea, and it was intended that they would pull together the various training agencies to provide training for school leavers and for the short and long-term unemployed. They would also help businesses to develop the skills necessary either to expand or to make themselves more efficient in the future.
TECs have been given certain jobs in relation to which they are effectively a Government agency. They are responsible for administering youth training, employment training, training for work for the long-term unemployed and for training credits. From the beginning, the Government made a commitment and statements were made of various objectives. All of us who were Members at that time were sent promotional material on the subject.
It was clear that the Government were encouraging participation from the private sector, and encouraging people to join in with help to target training on areas where long-term growth was expected. The private sector was encouraged to develop higher skills, and particularly to offer support in areas where there had been a decline in industry. South Thames is unique because it is definitely the most needy area for such an agency.
The first chairman of the South Thames TEC, when talking to a European training conference in 1992, said:
South Thames exhibits all the characteristics of a deprived inner city area. The community we serve is made up of a million residents of whom one third come from the ethic minorities. In one school in Lambeth 115 languages are spoken.
He added that the TEC covers some of the poorest and most deprived districts in London as he talked about the needs with which the South Thames TEC must deal.
Its budget of £46 million has successfully grown during the past four years from £25 million at the beginning. It was the pilot TEC for adult training credit, and it covers 13 per cent. of London's population and 11 per cent. of the work force. All four of the boroughs affected have urban priority areas, poor housing, high levels of crime, high unemployment and special training needs. We have been particular victims of a declining manufacturing industry, and the recession has hit us very hard.
It is not surprising then that, of the top 10 constituencies in Britain in terms of unemployment, four are within the area of the South Thames TEC. Those four include my constituency, which is now in the invidious position of being the fourth worst in the country.
Everything initially appeared to be going well with the South Thames TEC; so well that the Government regularly sang its praises. The current Chancellor of the Duchy even had a go at the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) for not paying tribute to
the tremendous amount of work being done by the South Thames training and enterprise council in providing opportunities to the long-term unemployed."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 907.]
It continued to be successful and respected until about a year ago, when there first appeared to be some financial difficulties.
During 1994, those difficulties became more and more obvious. In August, the chief executive resigned. In passing, I would like to pay tribute to Mike Hanson who—I think my colleagues would agree—did an excellent job in presenting and promoting south London locally and further afield. We were very sad that he went. When the history of this episode is written, I hope that no one will say that the fault lay at his door. He tried extremely hard to ensure that the TEC delivered, even though it did not always give the Government the messages that they wanted to hear, and continued to act independently, which is important.
The TEC continued to serve the local community, as the deprivation figures became worse in south Thames. Last year, we ended up as the TEC area in Britain with the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest levels of job availability. Let there be no mistake, therefore, about the importance of the TEC to south London.
In the autumn, a breach notice was issued because of various financial irregularities. Apparently, the TEC did not have the proper financial management structures in place to ensure that invoices that were presented were genuine. Further management changes took place and many assurances were given, on the record, that matters were being sorted out.
On 21 December, after the House had risen for the recess, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) wound up South Thames TEC. On that day it went into receivership. The Government had two options: to come to the rescue and support the TEC; or, to pull the plug. All the information in the possession of those who were directly informed suggests that the Government specifically decided to withdraw their support and to pull the plug.
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the Government were initially complacent and unprepared and then had not taken seriously the concerns expressed

locally, or given local management the chance to respond to the breach notice. If it was due to a lack of preparedness, the manifestations are as serious for jobs and training in south London as the lack of preparedness of the Japanese Government to deal with recent emergencies in Japan—and I am not being flippant. The Government were not ready to pick up the pieces and to deal with the problem.
The second explanation is that the Government intended to pull the plug because they were not happy with a high-spending TEC that was trying to ensure that the Government kept on putting the money in and, not least, because the Secretary of State does not like TECs very much, to set an example to the other TECs. I do not take a view one way or the other. I know, however, that the right solution was not to allow the TEC suddenly to disappear.
An extraordinary situation has resulted from that December disappearance. I understand that it has also happened once in Scotland, but I do not remember an occasion in England when a body which everyone who had contracted with it thought was a Government agency suddenly went bust. Yes, it was, formally, a private sector company, but everyone dealing with it assumed that it had Government backing.
Suddenly, a bit like a south Thames bubble—it burst. The Minister may nod his head, but people were subsequently told that they must wait in line, as one does when a company goes bust, and hope that there would be enough to pay them out. That is true, and all of my south Thames colleagues will testify to the fact that we have been contacted by people who are waiting for the money that the Government said that they would receive⁁I have a file full of contacts here.
First, assurances were given. In the week before Christmas, the Department of Employment said that training obligations would be maintained, but might be transferred, and a letter of comfort was issued. The Under-Secretary said later in a written answer:
As foreshadowed in the minute laid before the House on 21 December 1994 … letters of comfort have been issued to certain providers of training and business support programmes within the area covered by South Thames training and enterprise council. That process is continuing. The minute said, that some of the indemnities were likely to be called in and that has now occurred."—[Official Report, 16 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 331.]
I think that £9 million was made available, as a Government grant, so that honouring the obligations could commence. That was welcome.
One sometimes wonders whether debating an issue in this House serves any use. The Minister and I have had a word and he says that the following facts are unrelated. But the fact that we were due to debate the matter today has produced a flurry of activity in the past day or two, including the tabling of a revised minute yesterday and ministerial letters arriving at near to the speed of light. I have received two letters from the Minister today, both of which are welcome.
My colleagues and I have also received an invitation to meet the Minister before Thursday to discuss the matter. I understand that the revised minute includes individuals who were not included in the original minute. Obviously, that is welcome, but it does not provide all the answers and has certainly not produced money for everyone waiting in the queue.
I shall list some examples of organisations that are in the queue and then ask some questions. Although the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will say a few words if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in reality all that we can do tonight is express our huge concerns on the Floor of the House while accepting that we do not expect the Minister to answer tonight the huge number of questions that need to be answered.
Some of the people in the queue are owed a very large sum of money. Southwark college, the major further education college in my borough, is owed —1.4 million for training credits, work-related further education, capital works schemes, student hardship funds and the like. I have a list of some 20 organisations in Southwark that have various contracts. Many of them have contacted me in some way. They range from large public agencies like colleges to individual who were employees or for whom a contract worth £50 makes a huge difference.
For example, a firm called Martyn Dawes Associates is waiting for £17,000. Its suppliers are chasing it, and unless it can pay off the people to whom it owes money it must either lay people off or get into financial difficulty. It has had verbal commitments but nothing in writing and no letters answered by the receiver, Grant Thornton. The firm also tells me that it received the letter saying that Grant Thornton was the receiver only after the statutory 28-day period in which the letter should be sent. That is at best a technical—if not more serious—breach of the law.
An organisation called Springboard Southwark is also owed money. Like many other bodies, it is effectively now a Government paying agency. As a charity, it is being asked to fund the obligation of a Government agency and is using its funding to provide training allowances for other people. If that is not an example of bad practice by an agency that is meant to be about good business practice, I do not know what is. The real concern is that the death of the TEC will give rise to a considerable loss of credibility.
Training for Change has also contacted me. It is owed £22,000 in outstanding invoices. It has had many conversations with the Government office for London, and some matters have been secured while others have not.
The big sector that has not yet been secured is all the money due for the investors in people programme, none of which looks like being secured. That is bad news because many investors have responded to the call to be partners and are now left effectively unprotected and unsecured. If that does not put people off becoming partners in training and enterprise, I do not know 'what will.
The list includes little local organisations like Southwark Heritage, which develops tourism. The consequence of the Government's action is also shown by the words of the head teacher of a secondary school in my constituency, St. Saviour's and St. Olave's school, who wrote to me saying:
We are sure you share our dismay at the unreliability of a government funded agency".
The school was expecting to be supported by the schools' effectiveness project.
One person wrote to me that she had submitted a business plan and had expected 40 quid a week for six months. Last week, someone who lives in Rotherhithe came to my surgery and explained that he was in exactly

the same position as that woman, only worse. He had been told that there would no problem and that he could expect 40 quid a week. He entered into various commitments on the basis of that assurance, including loans from the bank, which he now has no capacity to pay off.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who cannot be present tonight, asked me to mention someone at the bottom end of the financial scale. Someone was due 50 quid and was sent a cheque that bounced. Many other people I have seen were also sent cheques that bounced.
I have given the range of the practical, real, suddenly-left-singing-for-our-money implications. We must have a mechanism to guarantee all outstanding invoices. Nothing less than a decision by the Government to honour all the obligations will satisfy those hon. Members who are present and all the other interested people who will read the debate. We must do something to restore the good faith of the TEC system with all the people who are needed to be partners in it. We must ensure that no one is left out of pocket for the period for which people are now subsidising the current shortfall in funding. We must ensure that such financial difficulties, with their consequences, are not repeated.
What are we to do now to ensure that those in training programmes can continue in them when the current contract comes to an end? I know that the Minister will offer a partial response to that question. What are we to do now to honour those who have delivered the work? What will happen to payments for work from now until the end of the financial year and to outstanding payments to people for last October and November, before the receivers were sent in? What role does the Government office for London play, as opposed to the Department or the TEC successor?
I and my colleagues are extremely concerned to know about the new arrangements. Any arrangement that merely carves up the South Thames TEC and makes, for example, my borough an appendage to central London and the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich appendages to the borough of Bromley and those further out of London would be unsatisfactory. There was a logic in the South Thames TEC being constituted of boroughs with a common tradition—that logic is no less valid today.
We want the present TEC area to remain. We want the public to be told what is going on. We want anyone who has a concern to be given a direct answer. We want contracts to be honoured and debts paid. We want an assurance that what has happened to our TEC will never be repeated.
If one goes to watch Millwall, one of the chants is, "No one likes us, we don't care." It feels now as though the Government are saying that to south London. My colleagues and I do care and the Government should care. I hope that tonight they will pledge to put right quickly an avoidable fiasco that should never have happened.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): In the time available, does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) should speak?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): Briefly.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate.
I should like to reinforce the case made by the hon. Gentleman. Important training operations are threatened with closure at any moment as a result of the situation that has arisen. I have written to the Minister about the Greenwich Training Company, which has established an excellent reputation and currently has about 450 trainees and employs 42 staff.
Last Friday it was uncertain about whether it would be able to pay its 150 youth trainees their weekly allowance. It is now seeking legal advice as to whether it is able to continue to trade because it might be insolvent. It is unsatisfactory that such worthwhile training operations should be threatened with insolvency because of a situation created by the Minister's decision and the Government's failure to put suitable mechanisms in place to ensure the survival of training.
I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that that type of venture will be enabled to survive, at least in the short term, until a more appropriate long-term framework is in place to guarantee the survival of training. Otherwise, large numbers of people whose future livelihoods depend on that type of venture will be left in the lurch; that would be unacceptable.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): The debate that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has initiated gives us a chance, as he rightly said, to examine some of the issues surrounding South Thames training and enterprise council. I am afraid that, in the time that remains, I shall not be able to discuss all the issues that he mentioned, and I hope that he will understand that perhaps I can pursue them in correspondence or, if he wishes, at a meeting with him, and with his colleagues if he so desires.
The decision that I took on 21 December 1994, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was not easy, but I am convinced that it was the right and necessary decision. It took place against a background, which we should not forget, of there being 82 TECs in England and Wales—the hon. Gentleman said "this country". It is a good job that hon. Members who usually sit on the Bench behind him were not present. They might not have liked that, because it includes Wales in the total. As the hon. Gentleman said, those TECs are about three to four years old.
In the time that they have existed, TECs have demonstrated that they are able to provide significant improvements in the delivery of a range of Government programmes. They are local organisations; they are in the private sector; they are run by local business people. Two or three times, the hon. Gentleman used the words, "the

Government agency". TECs are not Government agencies and never have been. They were set up as private companies limited by guarantee. They have a contract with the Government to deliver Government programmes but, beyond that contract, they have considerable flexibility to generate margins and to use those margins for any other purpose in their overall strategy agreement.
I shall say a word about audit and control arrangements, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. All TECs are required, by annual contract with our Department, to operate sound financial management control systems. Teams of departmental staff carry out regular risk assessments of all TECs. They examine their financial controls and systems, and their means of demonstrating by documentary evidence that they have delivered the training for which they have claimed funding.
Each TEC is allocated to a risk band. All the other TECs in the country bar one are in the low-risk category; one is in the medium-risk category. Only South Thames TEC has been in the high-risk category, and the rest is history, to which I shall return later.
I emphasise that it was a licensing requirement—and we are embarked on the licensing of all TECs—that TECs should be in the low-risk category. Therefore, no TEC will be able to be licensed without being in that category, and all TECs will be required to be licensed in the next two years.
I should also make it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General's report from the National Audit Office on our own departmental accounts for 1993–94 specifically highlighted South Thames TEC; the report also referred to significant improvements in the technical audit and financial control systems.
I shall discuss South Thames TEC specifically. The history of the case is that weaknesses were found as long ago as July 1993, and the TEC was told about those weaknesses in its financial accounting systems. Our London Government regional office worked with the TEC to try to obtain improvements to its systems.
In very early 1994, the TEC was told that it would have to be placed in the high-risk category, and it was asked in fairly strong terms to implement an action plan to return it to a low-risk category. When it became demonstrably clear that it was failing to do so, the breach of contract notice to which the hon. Gentleman referred was issued, on 3 October 1994.
Following that, in spite of the changes in management to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, we began to have serious doubts that even that breach would be remedied, and we sent in a team of accountants from our Department and from Messrs Grant Thornton. They submitted a report to the Department on 16 December 1994, a copy of which is in the Library and therefore available for all hon. Members to read.
In summary, the main points are as follows. The report demonstrated a very serious loss of about £million in the previous accounting period. It demonstrated an incorrect balance sheet, which itself was bad. It demonstrated—perhaps more seriously—that the forecast for 1995–96 was for continuing very serious losses. Perhaps most significantly, the management accounts could not be substantiated by the information available.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I could, at that stage, have decided to bail out the TEC, and he is right—of course that was an option. But given all the information


that I received from the accountants and the glaring weaknesses in the financial control systems that had not been remedied despite all the many months of pressure from my Department, I do not believe that I would have been fulfilling my duty to the taxpayer if I had put more public money into an organisation that had shown itself to be completely incapable of managing that public money.

Ms Joan Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Paice: I am sorry, but I have not got time to give way. I have many questions to answer.
On 21 December—just five days after we had the report—I appointed the receiver. On the same day, I issued letters of comfort to the providers.

Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Paice: No, I am sorry. I will not give way as I have very little time to respond to many points.
I laid a minute before the House. As required. I also informed the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the events as they transpired. Letters of comfort were initially provided to the providers of youth training and training for work. The letters demonstrated that we would provide funds for the receiver for the three months following—up to the end of the present contracting year, the end of March.
In addition, we would also make payments for accounting period nine, from 7 November—six weeks earlier than when the receiver went in. The reason for the choice of 7 November—which I have seen

questioned—was clearly because at that stage we had not paid any money to the TEC for that period, so there was no question of double funding, which is important.
Since then, we have extended the letter of comfort to child care, work-related further education and various aspects of the career service. The Department of the Environment has extended it to business start-up schemes, education and business partnerships, compacts and teacher placements—it is important to stress that point as the hon. Gentleman raised a particular case.
We are still looking at all aspects of how we can provide comfort for the providers and we propose to lay a further minute before the House in line with the procedures and to issue a further letter of comfort to providers, guaranteeing that if their existing contracts with the TEC are not renewed, they will nevertheless be paid for outputs achieved in relation to training completed prior to 26 March under the existing contracts. We will pay for output-related funding even though it may not occur to be paid until after the period for which we have already issued comfort.
Of course I am aware that many providers are owed money by the TEC for the period before then. I could give a more detailed explanation, but in my final minute I shall just say that the payment of those debts is a matter for the receiver. It would not be appropriate for the Government to make payments to providers for money owed to them prior to period nine. We have already made that money available—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve midnight.